ANTS. 



naming ants has great advantages and some disadvantages. It show- 

 the relationships of the different forms very clearly and this is an 

 admirable trait in nomenclature, but it is also very cumbersome. For 

 ordinary purposes it is sufficient to treat the varietal name as if it 

 were specific and designate the ant mentioned above simply as Canipo- 

 notus noveboracensis Fitch. This is the more justifiable as the variety 

 among ants is very nearly equivalent to the species among many 

 other groups of animals, such as birds and mammals. In the present 

 work 1 shall use the binomials as a rule and refer the reader for the 

 full terminology of our North American ants to the catalogue in 

 Appendix C. 



This chapter may be concluded with a conspectus of the present 

 classification of the Formicidse compiled very largely from the works 



FIG. 76. Worker of 

 Strumigenys obscitri- 

 ventris of Porto Rico. 

 (Original.) 



FIG. 77. Worker of 

 Stntmigenys lewisi of Ja- 

 pan. (Original.) 



of Emery and Forel. Concerning the important details of this classifi- 

 cation these authorities are unanimous but there are certain points on 

 which they differ, and many which they have left undecided till more 

 material is forthcoming and profounder studies of whole groups of 

 genera have been undertaken. They differ mainly on the limits of two 

 of the five subfamilies, the Ponerinae and Dorylinse, Emery maintain- 

 ing that the tribe Cerapachysii belongs with the Dorylinae whereas 

 Forel assigns it to the Ponerinre. The tribe in question certainly 

 possesses peculiarities which ally it with both subfamilies, but the 



