1881.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 59 



sel may have been mistaken for the intestine, as this may be seen 

 in some specimens very plainly. 



Dr. James Blake ^ has published a brief report in which he 

 falls upon an error quite the reverse of Dr Loew.^ " The intes- 

 tine of the insect," he says, " is not continued beyond the thorax, so 

 that there is no way in which the remains of the food can be ex- 

 pelled from the body, except by the mouth." It follows, of course, 

 that with this view, he should further err in supposing the honey- 

 bag to be formed simply by the expansion of the abdominal seg- 

 ments. 



The illustrations above figured, on the contrary, show that the 

 intestinal canal has neither been ruptured, nor resorbed, nor other- 

 wise disposed of than is quite natural.^ 



III. Third, it is seen that the process by which the rotundity 

 of the honey-bearers has probably been produced, has its exact 

 counterpart in the ordinary distension of the crop in over-fed 

 ants ; that, at least, the condition of the alimentar}- canal, in all 

 the castes is the same, differing only in degree, and therefore, the 

 probability is very great that the honey-hearer is simply a worker 

 with an overgroivn abdomen. 



If this last conclusion has not been fully demonstrated, it has 

 at least been shown that there is no anatomical or physiological 

 obstacle thereto, but very much confirmatory thereof. 



The Australian Honey-Ant. — An exceedingly interesting 

 discovery of a new species of honey-ant, adds to the probability 

 of this last conclusion. Sir John Lubbock has described this 

 species as Gamponotus ijijlatus,* from specimens collected at 

 Adelaide, Australia. I received examples through the courtesy 

 of Mr. Gerald Waller, last summer, which enabled me even in 

 advance of Lubbock's admirable description, to note that a con- 



^ Proceedings California Academy Science, 1873, part II, page 98. 



2 Dr. Forel, in the communication to the Morphologic© physiological So- 

 ciety of Munich, already alluded to, appears to me to have misunderstood 

 Dr. Loew's published statement. Dr. L. erred in seeing too much intestine, 

 instead of none at all. 



^ It is not worth while to more than mention here the opinion which has 

 leen largely circulated, that the workers bite and wound the ends of the 

 ahdomens, producing thereby an inflammation which seals up the anus, 

 stops all excretion, and so causes the rei^letion of the abdomen. 



* Journal Linn. Soc. Zoology, 1880^ Vol.. XV, p. 185, seq. 



