944 THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S RECORD. 
species, compressa! [Sima compressa, Roger, 1868= Pseudomyrma ? 
allaborans, Walker (1859)], which is therefore the type and cannot be 
changed. The synonymy is therefore as follows :— 
TETRAPONERA, F. Smith. 
Terraponera, F’. Smith (1852); =Sima, Rogen (1863) =*PSEHUDO- 
MYRMA (nec Lund), Emery (p.) (1900). 
Type 1: Eciton nigrum, Jerd. (=atrata, F. Smith; Wheeler, 
1911). 
TerraponerA, F. Smith (1852); F. Smith (1877) ; Wheeler (1911). 
Type 2: Pseudomyrma? allaborans, Walk. (=compressa, 
Roger ; Roger, 1863). 
Sima, Roger (1863); Bingham (1903); Wheeler (1911) =*TETRA- 
PONERA (nec F. Smith), Emery (1900). 
Type 3: Eciton rufonigrum, Jerd. (Simarufonigra, Hmery, 1900). 
“SIMA (nec Roger); Emery (1900). 
(To be continued.) 
The Coloration Problems. 1. 
By W. PARKINSON CURTIS, F.E.S. 
(Continued from page 220.) 
Now as to the method of argument, ‘‘ which I have no love for.” 
T used it, as Mr. Wheeler says, quite openly. I called attention to the 
fact that as an argument it was a poor one. I gave the reason for 
using it, which reason I still think holds good, viz., that so many facts 
do fit into the theories so neatly that the mere process of demolition 
without construction will not of itself oust these theories. Certainly 
I know of no more effective way of destroying an irrational theory than 
by putting a rational onein its place. Personally I feel quite convinced 
that ultimate success will not crown the efforts of the opponents of the 
theories until they have done this, in which again I do not think they 
will ‘succeed. 
The present mental attitude of the opponents reminds one of the 
sreat flourish of trumpets with which it was announced that De Vries’ 
mutational theory, or the Mendelian theory, or both, had completely 
superseded the Darwinian theory, and now the former is under the 
erayest suspicion, whilst the latter has probably done more to strengthen 
the belief in the correctness of the Darwinian theory than any other 
recent discovery. 
With regard to scientific scepticism, Col. Manders had in his later 
notes, so far as they came under my notice, almost wholly confined 
himself to recording facts which militated against theories, and had 
expressed such views that it was safer to treat him as an opponent. It 
had struck me that his “ neutrality ’’ was not an armed one, but a dis- 
