212 



FOKMJCID.T-. 



yellow ish ; liead, thorax, nodes of the pedicel and abdomen for 

 the most part smooth, polished and shining; the cheeks below 

 the eyes, the sides of the mesothorax, and the metanotum iinely 

 striate, transversely so on the last ; pilosity moderate or si)arse, 

 fine and rather long, oblique on the antenuje and legs. Head 

 longer than broad, posteriorly transverse ; mandibles smooth ; 

 clypeus anteriorly arched, the medial carina) almost obsolete; 

 antennae moderately long, the scape nearly reaching the top of the 

 head ; eyes flat, lateral, placed a little below the middle of the 

 head. Thorax elongate; pro-mesonotum convex, broad, nearly as 

 broad as the head ; thorax emarginate at the meso-metanotal 

 suture, the latter deeply impressed ; the basal portion of the 

 metanotum long, rectangular, truncate posteriorly. Pedicel long, 

 in profile the 1st node rather thick, convex anteriorly and poste- 

 riorly, with a petiole in front, little if at all higher than the 2nd 

 node, \vhich is transverse, very much broader than the 1st node, 

 rounded anteriorly, transverse posteriorly ; abdomen long, oval, 

 somewhat truncate at base. 



Length, ^ 3-3'7 mm. 



Hah. Spread througho.it India, Ceylon, and Burma, extending 

 to Borneo. 



Smith described a number of ants from India under the genus 

 31i/rmic(f, some of which may belong to the genus Monomorium. 

 The descriptions, however, are unfortunately so short, giving 

 chiefly details of colour, that in the absence of the types (and 

 the greater number of these are lost) it is impossible to say 

 whether the insects he described belonged to true Myrmica, Mono- 

 morium, Leptotliorax, Tetramormm , or even Sole'no2'sis. Moreover, 

 a great number of Smith's types were females or males, and from 

 his descriptions it is, more often than not, utterly impossible to 

 assign any workers to them. As an instance. Smith's Mijrmica 

 hidmtnta (Cat. vi, p. 124), from Calcutta, surmised by Mayr to be 

 a Monomorium, is, I have little doubt, a ^ of Solenopsis f/eminata. 

 At least there is a solitary distorted specimen, without antennse, 

 that I make out to be this ant, gummed on a card in the 

 collection of the British Museum. This is labelled Myrmica 

 bidentatu. Smith, but not in Smith's writing. I give below refer- 

 ences to Smith's descriptions, also to a few other species described 

 by Jerdou, Walker, and Motschulsky which may belong to Mono- 

 morium or any one of the genera mentioned above, but which I 

 have been unable to identify. 



Atta dit^siuiilis, Jerdou, Madr. Journ. L. S. xvii (1851), y. 107. 



Atta domicola, Jerdon, I. c. p. 105. 



Myrmica cajca, Jerdon, I. c. p. 116. 



Myrmica breviceps, Smith, Second Yark. Miss., Hymen. 1878, 



*p. 12, 2 . (No locality.) 

 Myrmica cursor, Smith, I. c. p. 11, $. (No locality.) 

 Myrmica liictuosa, Smith, I. c. p. 12, cj' . 

 Myrmica liuuiilis, Smitli, Cat. vi (1858), p. 123, $ . 

 Myrmica rugifrons. S?nith, I. c. p. 124, j . 



