AUSTRALIAN CERAPACIIYINI. 217 



jointed antennae. He therefore concluded that Kusphindu.'i was 

 merely a subgenus of Sphinctomyrmex. An examination of the 

 Australian specimens convinced him that each colony of Eusphinctus 

 contained two kinds of workers, one small and eyeless, the other large 

 and possessing eyes and ocelli. As a somewhat similar dimorphism 

 of the worker caste had been found in the European Poncra cduardi, 

 he inclined to the \'iew that the eyed individuals of Eusphinctus were 

 gynfecoid workers, but he was baffled by these forms, which kept 

 turning up, often in considerable numbers in colonies received from 

 Australia. Later, in a species of what he regarded as Sphincfonii/rmex 

 s. str. (^S. imbccillis) from South West Australia, he found a single 

 large, eyeless individual, much like a worker, but more pilose, with 

 more convex sides to the head and much larger gaster, more feebly 

 constricted between the segments. This specimen he designated 

 as an " ergatomorphic female" and noted its resemblance to the 

 dichthadiigynes of the Dorylinje on the one hand and to the large- 

 eyed, shorter-headed and more pilose workers of Eusphinctus on the 

 other, but confessed himself to be even more baffled in his attempts 

 to interpret the personnel of colonies of Australian Sphinctomyrmcr. 

 In 1905 Ernest Andre (Rev. d'Ent. 24, 1905, p. 205) found the two 

 types of individuals in a new species of Eusphinctus {E. duchaussoyi) 

 from Sydney, N. S. W., and expressed the following opinion in regard 

 to their meaning: "I consider the individuals with eyes and ocelli as 

 ergatoid females and not as gynsecoid workers, although Forel in- 

 clines to the latter hypothesis so far as E. steinhcili is concerned. My 

 opinion is based on the fact that up to the present time no normal 

 females have been found in any of the known species of the genus 

 Eusphiiictus and that probably such females do not exist but are 

 replaced by ergatoids, a condition not without precedent in the ant- 

 world. One may, of course, say by way of objection that the type of 

 the genus Sphinctomyrmex, of which Eusphinctus is regarded as a 

 subgenus, is based on a female with nornaal characters, but I would 

 reply tliat its worker is still unknown, so that it is not certain that the 

 described female, which is American, belongs to the same genus as the 

 Asiatic and Australian species. I believe rather, till proof to the con- 

 trary is forthcoming, that the genus Sphinctomyrmex should be re- 

 stricted to the single .S. stdli of Brazil, which is the type, and that all 

 the Asiatic and Australian species should constitute the genus Eu- 

 sphinctus Emery, Avithout distinction between those having 12 or 11 

 antennal joints. Besides such characters as may be exhibited by the 

 still unknown worker of Sjjhi)irfomyrmex, this genus is characterized 



