xlv 
are very large. The construction of the petiole, post-petiole, 
and tibial spurs is peculiar. Wheeler has recently shown the 
antennae are 12-jointed in the g, 2 and % of all four genera, 
and he has also proved that the gizzard is much more specialised 
than in other Myrmicine ants. 
I do not know what my colleague Mr. Crawley’s views are 
on the subject, nor have I yet seen any opinions expressed 
by any other of the first myrmecologists, but personally I 
consider that all the above points taken together justify 
Wheeler in raising these four genera to the rank of an 
independent subfamily. 
Cerapachyiinae. 
In 1895 Emery transferred the tribe Cerapachyini from the 
Ponerinae to the Dorylinae, a proceeding with which both 
Forel and Wheeler disagreed. He subsequently returned them 
to the Ponerinae with the rank of a section which he called 
Prodorylinae. 
The larvae are extremely like those of the Dorylinae, and 
the foraging habits of certain of the adults are similar. The 
worker, on the other hand, has a Ponerine habitus, but the 
female characters in the various genera are very diverse, 
some being very Ponerine-like, others being so like a Doryline ? 
that they might be taken for a dichthadigyne. The same is 
the case in the males—a male of the genus Acanthostictus, 
which has been recently discovered in the Argentine by 
Gallardo, might easily be mistaken for a male Dorylus. Other 
males are very Ponerine like, though they do not possess 
penicilli, 
It will thus be seen that these ants are intermediate between 
the Ponerinae and the Dorylinae and might easily be united 
to either. Wheeler therefore prefers to treat them as a sub- 
family; and this certainly has its advantages. Emery’s name 
Prodorylinae, which otherwise might become the name of the 
subfamily, cannot be used, as there is no genus named 
Prodorylus. 
We reproduce the diagram in which Wheeler indicates the 
phylogenetic relations of the seven subfamilies. It will be 
seen that he uses the name Formicinae for the subfamily 
