572 A CENTURY OF PROGRESS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES 



ants: Santschi, Kuzsky, Stitz, Viehmeyer, Karawajew, Bondroit, Donisthorpe, 

 Crawley, Menozzi, Clark, and numerous others. Taken generally, their work is 

 very disappointing, following as it does more or less faithfully the pattern of 

 Forel in spirit and method. One looks in vain among the thousands of dubious 

 names and useless descriptions published by these workers for a real sign of a 

 developing critical approach, but all that meets the eye is "sp. nov.," "subsp. 

 nov.," "var. nov.," punctuated very occasionally by an irrelevant figure or an 

 unworkable key. The freshest works of the period are probably those of Arnold 

 and Mann, based on material largely collected by themselves in relatively remote 

 and myrmecologically unknown parts of the world, and produced as whole 

 faunas with keys and figures. 



The reaction to this depressing period of description for description's sake 

 and increasing taxonomic irresponsibility was dreadfully slow in gathering 

 strength. In the 1920's and 1930's, the center of myrmecological investigation 

 began, almost imperceptibly at first, to shift from Europe, with men like Bruch, 

 Gallardo, and Borgmeier in South America, Arnold in South Africa, and M. R. 

 Smith and Creighton in North America concentrating more closely upon the 

 native ants of their own regions. In the light of their field observations and 

 careful collecting, the pentanomial system came under a severe strain, and at 

 the same time there arose a feeling that the art of description had fallen to a 

 very low state. Improvements in techniques of sampling, description, and illus- 

 tration became general, in large part at the insistence of Kennedy, but it was not 

 until the appearance, in 1942, of Ernst Mayr's Systemaiics and the Origin of 

 Species that the stage was set for the loosening of the debilitating grip of the 

 pentanomial system upon ant taxonomy. This grip was first broken for myrme- 

 cology by W. S. Creighton's Ants of North America, appearing in 1950, a book 

 that not only applied Ernst Mayr's principles broadly to a large fauna but 

 finall}' signaled an uncompromising shift to the critical, revision-minded, bio- 

 logical taxonomy we hope is here to stay. After three years, it seems certain that 

 Creighton's book is having a resounding effect on taxonomic theory and practice 

 around the world, and it is especially gratifying to note that the younger work- 

 ers are approaching the study with a revisionary spirit. 



Because Emery's and Wheeler's generic keys are based on an unsound system 

 to begin with, and because they have been swamped by the description of the 

 past thirty years, the outstanding need in general ant taxonomy today is a new 

 and workable key to the genera and higher categories. This must be based on a 

 new and sounder classification, which in turn requires dehridement through 

 wholesale synonomy at all systematic levels and a thorough survey of compara- 

 tive anatomy, both external and internal, in the various ant groups. Modern 

 generic revisions, thoroughly done, deserve and are now receiving high priority. 

 A survey of the male genitalia is badly needed. A look at recent publications 

 and work in progress today shows a response to these needs that is encouraging 

 on the whole, and there seems to be no reason why the current gratifying trend 

 should not continue. Because of their huge and readily available populations 

 and their segregation into colonial systems capable of considerable manipula- 

 tion, ants provide a marvelous kind of material for biological study. It would 

 be a shame if the taxonomic picture were to remain so confused as to continue 

 seriously to hamper their usefulness. 



