152 . W. M. WHEELER AND J. F. McCLENDON. 



Nest No. 3. Colebrook, Conn., Aug. 19, 1901. $ , /?-?. 



Nest No. 4. Colebrook, Conn., July 21, 1901. , /3-9. 



Nest No. 5. Colebrook, Conn., Aug., 1901. , d\ -?,/3-9. 



Nest No. 6. Colebrook, Conn., Aug. 12, 1901. , d\ -?. 



Nest No. 7. Rockford, 111., July 6, 1902. . 



Nest No. 8. Rockford, 111., Aug. 15, 1902. 3, c?. 



Nest No. 9. Rockford, 111., Aug. 20, 1902. 2, cf. 



Nest No. 10. Rockford, 111., Sept. 17, 1902. $ , d\ -?, /3-?. 



Nest No. i was collected by Miss Adele M. Fielde. No. 2 

 was an artificial nest seen in one of the laboratories at Woods 

 Hole. It contained many workers and a single dealated female of 

 the ,9-type. Of the ten nests in the table it will be seen that three 

 contained workers only, or workers and males. These may be 

 disregarded as having no bearing on the subject under considera- 

 tion. Of the seven nests containing females, four contained /9-fe- 

 males only ; two contained both a- and /3-females, and one con- 

 tained -females only. Thus it is seen that the a-female, which 

 has not been observed hitherto, occurred in three out of seven 

 nests, and in two very widely separated localities. This is sig- 

 nificant in view of the fact that L. latipcs is not nearly so com- 

 mon a species as L. clavigcr, interjectus, uiyops or apliidicola. 



Examination of a considerable number of females of both types 

 failed to disclose any forms intermediate in structure or pilosity. 

 In nest No. 5, however, all the /3-females had the same deep 

 brown color as the -females of the same nest. There were 

 often considerable individual variations in the venation of the 

 wings, but these variations occurred in both types indiscrimi- 

 nately. The types were not connected by intermediate forms and 

 were indistinguishable from each other by any characters in 

 the shape, color, or venation of the wings, so that these organs 

 could be omitted in the figures and in the comparative statements 

 to be given below. 



A study of the descriptions of L. latipes by previous writers 

 shows very clearly that the /9-female has played a very important 

 role in the recognition of the species, because it differs so markedly 

 in structure and pilosity from the females of any of the known 

 members of the genus. The original description by Walsh ('62, 

 p. 31 i) is so brief and inadequate that it would have been con- 



