SYNONYMY OF SOME GENERA OF ANTS. 943 
‘«‘ Wirst in the year 1877, F. Smith® thought of saving his formerly 
published generic name, so he wrote a quite new diagnosis and sunk 
Sima as a synonym of Tetraponera. © 
‘In Smith’s 1877 diagnosis stands the sentence :—‘ Ocelli three in 
male and female, obliterated in the worker.’ This character does not, 
however, fit 7. rufonigra, Jerd., natalensis, KF. Sm., and aethiops, F.Sm., 
which, nevertheless, are brought forward in the same work. 
“Therefore I allowed myself‘ to again use Smith’s name Tetrapo- 
nera, but in no way as the older generic name in the place of Sima, but 
rather to form a new subgenus, made up of Smith’s later diagnosis. I 
held the use of the name Tetraponera, 1852, invalid, being withdrawn 
by the author, and I sank it as a synonym of the genus Pseudomyrma 
(sensu lato); the description of 1877 had made the name again applic- 
able, but not with the date 1852, but rather the much younger 1877. 
‘“T also divided the genus Sima into the subgenera Sima and Tetra- 
ponera. The subgenus Sima included the species with developed 
ocelli; Tetraponera those species without or with rudimentary ocelli. 
I did not, unfortunately, name types for the two subgenera. Still, for 
a few years in Continental Europe the signification of genotype had 
not become the mode, or at least the necessary custom! At any ratel 
believe that my proposition (1900) to divide the genus Sima into sub- 
genera, still had priority over Bingham’s (1903) type-naming. 
‘*In my mentioned work two species were placed in the subgenus 
Sima: rufonigra, Jerd., and pilosa, KF. Sm. As pilosa does not stand 
under Sima in the meaning of Rogers, only rufonigra remains, which 
must stand as the type of the genus and subgenus. ‘The fixing of the 
type-species of the genus Sima is therefore implicitly shown by me in 
the year 1900.” 
We are unable to agree with Emery, who does not seem to realise 
the actual facts of the case. The question is entirely a matter of nomen- 
clature. It is immaterial what part of the world the species came from, 
whether Smith was in error over the presence or absence of the ocelli, 
or as to what he thought he had founded Tetraponera upon at a later 
date. We can only follow the laws of nomenclature, and it is quite 
clear that Sima, Roger (1863), must sink as an isonym of Tetraponera, 
I’, Smith (1852) (the types being congeneric), and no one can use them 
in any other sense. 
F. Smith [Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (2) 9, 44 (1852)] founded his 
genus T’etraponera on the two species atrata and testacea, and Wheeler 
(1911) gives as the type of Tetraponera—T. atrata, }'. Sm. (= Eciton 
nigrum, Jerd.,= Sima nigra, Hmery). 
Smith’ s second Species, testacea, is not congeneric with atrata, but 
belongs to the genus Pseudomyrma ; he was, therefore, in error when 
he stated in 1855 that his genus Tetraponera was founded on Pseudo- 
myrma 2 @,and he doubtless misled Emery, who incorrectly sunk 
Tetraponera aS a synonym of Pseudomurma in 1900. Emery states 
that Sima was founded for more than one species, whereas | Roger 
[Berlin Ent. Zeitschr.. T, 178 (1863)] founded his genus on a Suge 
1 dnn. N. York Acad. Sc., 24, 157-175 (1911). 
2 Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. (2). "8, 168 (1855). 
3 Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 68 (1877). 
4 Ann. Mus. Nat. Genova, 40, 673, (1900). 
