42. THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 
The two following quotations (taken from Wheeler) justly describe 
the aims and sentiments of myrmecologists “up to now.’ ‘‘ Myrme- 
cology has been more fortunate than many other branches of 
entomology in the men who have contributed to its development. 
These have been actuated, almost without exception, not by a mania 
for endless multiplication of genera and species, but by a temperate 
and philosophical interest in the increase of our knowledge.” [Ants 
1910 123). 
“The myrmecologist is being so constantly impressed with the 
great structural variations that may exist in the same colony of ants, 
and often therefore among the offspring of the same mother, that he is 
apt to be a ‘lumper’ with a vengeance.’’ [Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 58 
26 (1919)]. 
Alas! Bondroit has done all he can to. prove himself totally 
unfitted to be included in these quotations. In his book he describes 
no less than 24 new species and 12 new varieties; often from a single 
specimen, and not taken by himself, and consequently he can know 
nothing whatever about the colony whence it sprang. Furthermore 
there are also 6 new species and 2 varieties which he had described 
before, thus making a total of 80 new species and 14 new varieties for 
France and Belgium! Hither these countries must be much more 
favourable for ants than any others in Europe; or collectors elsewhere 
must be much less skilful; or students of other faunas d) not possess 
sufficient acumen to detect the differences between Bondroit’s species 
and those heretofore recognised as occurring in Europe! 
Let us now return to the Introduction of this unique work. As 
the author does not approve of the terms “ race’’ or ‘‘ subspecies,” 
terms which are recognised by all myrmecologists (and whose use is 
thoroughly explained by Wheeler in his Ants, page 181), he proposes 
to drop them ; and he also substitutes the termination itae instead of 
tae to the subfamilies, which is not only contrary to the usage of all 
other myrmecologists, but is in direct contradiction to the rules laid 
down by the International Code of Nomenclature. His suggested 
classification of the ants as a whole is still more bewildering; it is as 
follows :— 
“ Sous-famille Formicitae {tribu Dovgiinins 
-(tribu Formicini. 
tribu Ponerini. 
Sous-famille Myrmicitae+tribu Myrmicini. 
edi Dolichoderint.” 
Thus the “ Ponerini” and ‘ Dolichoderini” -with a one-jointed 
pedicel are put in the same subfamily as the “ Myrmicini’’ which - 
possess a two-jointed pedicel. Furthermore no notice is taken of the 
fact that the gizzard in the ‘“ Dolichoderini” is quite unlike those of any 
of the other subfamilies. Comment is superfluous. 
Next follow certain *‘ generalities ” on ants, which consist of three 
pages of crude statements, often quite inaccurate—thus the wings of 
female ants are said ‘to fall off naturally at the end of a few days”’; 
as is well known to all those who have taken the trouble to study the 
habits of ants, the fertilised female removes her wings by working 
them backwards and forwards, pulling them with her legs and 
mandibles, or rubbing them against twigs, grass stems, or 
anything handy—WMessor barbarus is placed in a category of ants 
