84 Mr. 11. St. J. K. Donisthorpe on 



It will thus be seen that I have been unable to detect any 

 species belonging to the other two subfamilies — Doiyliuae and 

 Myrraicinae. As no species of the former subfamily occur in 

 the Baltic amber, their absence is not surprising here ; but 

 that no species ot the latter are present is very curious. 



There are also some thirteen specimens of whose genera I am 

 doubtful (some being only f ragments)j but in any ease they do 

 not belong with certainty to the two subfamilies just mentioned. 

 These are numbered :— I. 8676, I. 8683, I. 8723, I. 8759, 

 I. 9520, I. 9624, I. 9695, I. 10129, I. 10209, I. 10211 ; 

 In. 17074 ; H. 127, and H. 334. Of these doubtful species 

 I sent drawings of the six most distinct specimens to my 

 friend Pruf. Wheeler, and he has very kindly returned them 

 to me with suggestions as follows : — (a. 18) I. 9695 Oaf- 

 au^acus?, ?; I. 10211 .Do/i<hoderus? (Hi/poclinea?), ?; 

 I. 10209 Liometopmn ?, $ ; In. 17074 Liometopum?, $ ; 

 H. 127 Liometopum?, $ ; H. 334 Camponotus?, ^ . 



I do not propose to describe or figure these specimens, for 

 the excellent reasons given by Wheeler. He writes (iti litt.j 

 10th Dec, 1919) : — " In the case of the Florissant fossils I 

 shall not bother to describe or figure any specimens which are 

 not quite clear. I pursued this course with the Baltic amber 

 ants, of wliich I saw many that were indecipherable. If one 

 actually refers obscure fossils to a particular genus without 

 a query, they are dragged through the literature, and often 

 produce great confusion later by giving the impression that 

 certain genera were present in certain formations.''^ 



Subfamily PoNESiNAJSy Le Peletier. 



Tribe ECTATOMMINI, Emery. 



Genus Syntaphus, nov. 

 (ffvvra<pos, bui'ied in the same grave.) 



■Diagnosis. An Ectatommine with a spine on the epinotum. 

 Genotype. jS. ivheeleri. 



Syntaphus wheeleri, sp. n. 



There are three pieces of rock which carry this species ; 

 two of them [I. 8744, I. 9936] exhibit the same specimen 

 bisected by the splitting of tlie block, and show the head, 

 thorax, and gaster, two legs, part of both antennae, and a 

 trace of the wings. On the third block [I. 9325] only the 

 head, thorax, and half of the fore wing are present (PL V. 

 fig. 2). The head is pointed at the posterior corners and the 



