296 BRITISH ANTS. 



whole nest, the most careful examination of it on a large white 

 sheet failed to produce either Lomechusa or its larvae 59 . This 

 appears to be the first time a pseudogyne has been found in Britain, 

 nor have I been able to detect such specimens in any of the British 

 collections which I have examined. This is the more remark- 

 able, as pseudogynes are very conspicuous objects, especially 

 those of sanguinea, with their hunch-backs and usually lighter 

 colour. 



On May 25th, 1906, I discovered Lomechusa strumosa in a san- 

 guinea nest at Woking, no pseudogynes being present, and I have 

 observed this beetle every year since in various nests throughout 

 the sanguinea area, which is not large in that locality. On May 17th, 

 1907, 1 found over sixty specimens of the beetle in a single nest, and 

 for several years I bred it in my large observation nest at home. 

 During all this time, until 1913, not a single pseudogyne was 

 observed at Woking, although specially searched for. In 1913 the 

 beetle appeared to be very scarce, I only saw a single specimen, 

 but on May 12th two nests of the ant situated near to each other 

 contained pseudogynes, quite ten per cent of the ants in one of 

 them consisting of this form 82 . These nests were most carefully 

 dug up, but neither Lomechusa nor its larvae could be found, and 

 the ants, and debris of the nests, were replaced in their original 

 situations. On June 12th, 1914, two colonies of sanguinea were 

 found, their nests occurring in almost the same spots as in the 

 previous year ; both contained pseudogynes, though not so plenti- 

 ful as in 1913, and in one of them two or three Lomechusa larvae were 

 present, in the other over a dozen. 



For a number of years Wasmann kept statistical charts of very 

 large colonies (consisting of many nests) of sanguinea, and every 

 credit should be given to him for these exhaustive observations, 

 although my experience which, after all, only consists of more or 

 less negative evidence, does not appear altogether to support his 

 theory. The number of dealated females of sanguinea present 

 in any nest varies considerably at different times : in 1912 I was 

 unable to find a wingless female, when badly wanted for experi- 

 ments, though the winged females were abundant ; but in 1913 

 dealated females were present in every nest in one I counted no 

 less than thirty-seven 82 . 



Forel states that eggs are first laid by the queens in April 25 , but 

 in captivity I have observed the latter to lay as early as January 

 and February, no doubt on account of the higher temperature of 

 my room. 



In queenless nests the workers of F. sanguinea lay large quantities 

 of eggs (at any rate in captivity) the greater number of these eggs 

 are devoured, but those which have come to maturity have (accord- 

 ing to Forel, Lubbock, Wasmann, and Viehmeyer) only produced 

 males. Crawley thinks that workers were produced in such a nest 



