1918] Life History of Bomb us A uricomus 45 



two queens had ever seemed to mind the presence of the other, 

 but from now on whenever the nest was disturbed, they often 

 threatened each other without, however, ever engaging in 

 actual combat. On July 2 larvae were observed in the pollen- 

 mass. They had probably emerged some days before, but as I 

 did not care to disturb the queens, I had not examined these 

 first few cells critically. It may be mentioned here that both 

 the queens were still occupied with the nest, though the queen 

 that was last introduced seemed to dominate the nest. 



By July 10 the nest had progressed so far that I could 

 remove the queens 3,nd photograph the nest, without the 

 risk of causing the queens to abandon it. Here I may say that 

 I believe it was the queen with the clipped wings that was 

 the actual mother of the developing colony. As time pro- 

 gressed this latter queen more and more asserted her right 

 over the colony, the other queen remaining listlessly about 

 the honey-pot. Moreover, it seems hardly probable that a 

 queen should start a colony and then calmly submit to its 

 being monopolized by another, when queens under natural 

 conditions usually fight over the nests. Again, from the 

 beginning of the colony, the queen with the clipped wings had 

 been the dominating figure. 



On July 14 the larvae began spinning their cocoons, more eggs 

 were laid by the queen, and the nest promised well for the 

 future. Frequently the queen could be heard making a purring 

 noise, while brooding over the comb. On July 20 the first 

 worker emerged, and by July 25 five more workers had made 

 their appearance. The variation in the rate of emergence 

 of these first few workers was mainly due to the egg-laying 

 habits of the queen. 



Of the later life-history of this colony little need be said. 

 It may be mentioned, however, that later in the season the 

 queen was accidently killed and the colony rapidly declined. 

 The egg-laying habits, nest manipulations, wax-production, 

 and other miscellaneous features were the same in this colony as 

 described in my first article of this species ('17); with one 

 exception. 



The honey-pots in this nest, except for the one first con- 

 structed, were not so large nor were they so distinctly separated 

 from the comb. 



