the busy masons to draw their fellows aside and thus 
carry on their work. But it either never occurred to them 
-. to do so, or the disposition was wanting.’ This, how- 
ever, applies to the case when the ants are engaged in 
making a new nest after having been transferred en masse 
by the author to hitherto unbroken ground. But “in the 
natural sites the workers showed great interest in the 
_ preservation of the rotunds, dealing with them very much 
as with the larve.” In these natural sites the rotunds 
hang suspended by their claws, backs downwards, from 
the roof of their underground chamber, and if they 
fall to the floor they are unable to move from the spot 
on account of their unwieldy mass. In such a case 
-severalworkers ‘‘ would join in removing one rotund 
pushing and pulling her along. . . . Another sketch re- 
presents a worker-major dragging a rotund honey-bearer 
_ up the perpendicular face of a cutting made in the exca- 
- vation of the nest. The mandibles of the two insects 
- were interlocked, and the worker dacked up the steep, 
successfully drawing her Zrofégé.” It seems, however, 
to have been undetermined whether in such a case the 
worker restores the rotund to her place on the roof of the 
chamber ; it is certain that they did not do so in the 
author’s artificial formicaries, for although the fallen 
rotunds “were faithfully attended, often cleansed and 
caressed, inno single instance did the workers attempt 
to right them and restore them to the roof.” 
It will be seen from this brief epitome of Dr. McCook’s 
results that, while adding a number of new facts, they 
partly confirm, and partly contradict the previously pub- 
lished statements of Llane (1832) and Wesmael (1838). 
But, as Dr. McCook himself observes, “One of the most 
perplexing accounts of the honey ant is that of Mr. Henry 
“Edwards,” who recorded the statements from a verbal 
description given to him by Capt. W. B. Fleeson, whose 
_ observations were made at ornear Santa Fé. This de- 
_ scription was first published in the Proceedings of the 
California Academy of Sciences (vol. v. p. 72, 1873), and 
afterwards in the columns of this journal. Its chief points 
were that the honey-bearing ants are suspended to the 
roof of this chamber by meshes of web, that there are 
- three very distinct castes, if not species and genera of 
ants forming a colony, that the larger kind form a fortress 
of a most remarkable character, and also gather leaves 
and flowers which they deposit in the middle of their 
fortress, leaving them to be then conveyed by ants of a 
second species to the honey-bearers as food. The re- 
markable fortress was described as being formed in the 
shape of a perfect square, having one side open and 
always facing due south, while round the remaining three 
sides the ants of the larger species were described as 
perpetually parading in a double line of defence. None 
of these assertions have been corroborated by Dr. McCook, 
and therefore he may be excused for suggesting that 
Capt. Fleeson may perhaps have been “testing the 
credulity of the writer by one of those jokes of which 
naturalists are occasionally the victims.” “But,’’ he 
adds, “ifthe narrative is to be taken in good faith, I can 
only explain the facts by supposing that the observer 
happened upon a nest of cutting ants (A¢fa fervens) 
within whose boundaries a nest of Melliger had chanced 
to be established, and had confounded the habits 
’ 
* 
hy 
NATURE. oe 
72 =. te TX ee >, ’ ‘ 
cutting ants, or some other species of a similar economy, 
has really acquired the habit of kidnapping and domesti- 
cating the honey-ant for the sake of its treasured sweets, 
precisely as many ants domesticate aphides.”’ ‘The 
porterage of leaves, &c., into nests is not an uncommon 
habit among ants of divers species; therefore, without 
stopping to discuss the question whether such material 
may contribute to the food supply of the formicary, it 
may be remarked that its most probable and ordinary use 
is for purposes of architecture or nest-building.’”’ 
[March 2, 1882 
were literally buried alive. It would have been easy for | of the two as those of one formicary ; or, second, that the 
After again reading the account as published by Mr. 
Edwards, we cannot entertain the suggestion that he has 
been the victim of an intentional hoax. But as the 
suggestion has been made by an honest and independent 
observer, we feel it to be incumbent on those who were 
responsible for the publication of the account to repudiate 
the insinuation of dishonesty ; and, looking to the definite 
nature of the statements which that account contained, 
we feel it is now more desirable than ever that they should 
be either verified or disproved by some competent natu- 
ralist visiting the locality where the observations are said 
to have been made. 
The second part of Dr. McCook's volume treats of the 
Occident Ants of the American Plains. These build 
mounds from less than half a foot to more than a foot in 
height, round which they make a circular “ clearing ” of 
grass and other vegetation, presumably by cutting it away 
after the manner of the agricultural ants of Texas, pre- 
viously described by the same author. The mound is 
always covered with pebbles which have been removed in 
the process of excavating the underground chambers and 
galleries. Some of the pebbles so transported are ten 
times the weight of the ant, so that the labour performed 
would be paralleled by that of a man if he could carry 
half a ton up a staircase one-third of a mile high. 
These ants do not begin their labour till eight or nine 
o'clock in the morning; so, as Dr. McCook seems not 
unwilling to observe, ‘fit might not be unmeet that those 
persons whose love of sleep during late morning hours 
has been disturbed by the familiar Scripture proverb, 
“Go to the ant, thou sluggard ; consider her ways, and be 
wise !’ should return upon their mentors with the above- 
recorded facts, and cite this ant, who is indeed no 
sluggard, as being nevertheless fond of a morning nap.” 
The day’s work, or at any rate the day of out-door work, 
begins by opening the gates which had been closed the 
previous evening. “The manner of opening the gate 
cannot be fully described, because the work is chiefly 
done within and behind the outer door of gravel. The 
mode would doubtless be correctly indicated by reversing 
the process of closing gates, presently described. What 
I saw was, first, the appearance of the quivering pair of 
antenne above one of the pebbles, followed quickly by 
the brown head and feet projected thr »ugh the interstices 
or joints of the contingent gra el-stones. Then forth 
issues a single worker, who peeps to this side and that, 
and after compassing a little circuit round about the gate, 
or perhaps without further ceremony, seizes a pebble, 
bears it off, deposits it a few inches from the gate, and 
returns to repeat the task; she is followed, sometimes 
cautiously and at intervals of ten, twenty, even thirty 
minutes, by a few other ants, who aid in clearing away 
