i^4 ANTS. 



of the literature, however, docs not overcome all of the difficulties of 

 the subject, for the species of ants often differ from one another by 

 characters too subtle and intangible to be readily put in word>. The 

 'habitus" of a .specie.^, as ever)- taxonomist knows, is something one 

 may take in at a glance, but be quite unable to express without weari- 

 some prolixity. Hence the importance of large collections, thoroughly 

 studied and identified and accessible to every student. Such collections 

 have been lacking in America and those interested in ants have had 

 to send their specimens abroad for identification. This is time-con- 

 suming, to say nothing of the inconvenience to which it often puts the 

 overworked specialist. 



Ants, like other organisms, may be studied from at least three 

 different points of view, according as the observer is most interested 

 in their classification, or taxonomy (including geographical distribu- 

 tion), their morphology (anatomy and development) or their ethology, 

 that is, their functional aspect (physiology and psychology). Even in 

 such a small group of insects these various subjects are so extensive 

 and intricate that very few observers have been able to cultivate them 

 all with equal success. This has, perhaps, been accomplished only by 



Emery and Forel, each of whom has de- 

 voted more than forty years of unremitting 

 study to the ants. Other workers have 

 been able to cultivate only one or at most 

 two of the subjects above mentioned. Be- 

 fore considering the classification it mav be 



FIG. 68. Worker of Tri- -11 



gonogaster recnrvispinosa of xve11 to sketch with the utmost brevity the 

 Western India. (Bingham.) history of myrmecology in its various 



branches. 



The foundations of the taxonomy of ants were laid in the closing 

 years of the eighteenth and the opening years of the nineteenth cen- 

 tury by Linne, Fabricius and Latreille. Linne (1/35) in his " Systema 

 Naturae " briefly described eighteen species, eight from Europe, 

 eight from South America and two from Egypt as belonging to the 

 single genus Formica. Some of these, like other well-known Linnasan 

 species of animal and plants, are collective species, that is, they embrace 

 several of what would now be regarded as distinct species. Fabricius 

 (1804), besides describing a number of additional species, created five 

 more genera: Lasins, Cryptoccnis, Atta, M \nnccia and Dorylus. Of 

 course, none of these corresponds fully to the genus bearing the same 

 name at the present time. He still retained the great majority of the 

 species in the Linnsean genus Formica, but divided it into two purely 

 artificial categories, one for the species with, and one for the species 



