THE ANTS OF FRANCE AND BELGIUM. 73 
which are said to possess monomorphic ¥ %, on page 11 Bondroit 
figures a large and a very small % of this species, and the inter- 
mediate forms are known to exist; this does not appear to be 
exactly monomorphic, but rather distinctly polynmorphic—for Wheeler's 
_ useful and recognised term ‘‘ gynaecoid %,”’ the unnecessary and 
objectionable name of ‘gynoides’’ is invented—pseudogynes are 
said never to exceed in size that of the ordinary %; whereas, as is 
well known, both macro-*and micro-pseudogynes occur—Tetramorinm 
is given as an instance where the different size between the 9? 
and % is considerable; this is by no means always the case in this 
genus—Formica sanguinea is said to occur only accidentally without 
slaves; Forel and Wasmann have both shown that when colonies of 
sanguinea have reached a certain age, and size, they may give up the 
keeping of slaves altogether, and certainly not by accident. 
Similar inaccuracies are not infrequent in the very short account 
given of the ‘foundation of the nest and population ’’—‘ Formicina 
flava” is said to possess another ‘‘ yellow ant”’ as a parasite; this’ we 
consider to be highly improbable, numerous experiments by Crawley, 
myself, and others go far to prove that this ant will not accept strange 
females even of its own species—DPonera coarctata is said to have only 
some 20 individuals in its colonies; various records occur of more 
populous colonies—Myrmecina graminicola is stated to consist of only 
a few more individuals than Ponera; very large colonies of Myrmecina 
are found—Formicina fuliyinosus is said to make its carton nests in 
hollow trees; as is well known this ant builds its nests quite as 
frequently in the ground, as in trees, and sometimes in cellars and 
roofs—Forel is said to pretend that the presence of a large number of 
myrmecophiles, such as Lomechusa and Atemeles, in an ant’s nest will 
cause the extermination of the same; it was not Forel at all who 
proposed this theory, moreover Bondroit has evidently got mixed up 
over Wasmann’s well known ‘“‘ Pseudogyne theory,” which he does not 
understand. 
The external characters are next dealt with, and it is a pleasure to 
be able to praise the author’s drawings (both here and throughout the 
book) which are undoubtedly the best part of the work. -Under 
‘“‘ Nervation”’ the author gives names to the cells and nerves of the 
wing which do not agree with the systems used by André, Cockerel, 
Emery, Forel, Jurine, Mayr, Saunders, Sharp or Wheeler. There can 
be no object in inventing a system different from that used by anyone 
else. 
We now come to the systematic part of the book—in all recognised 
modern works on ants the order of the subfamilies is as follows :— 
Ponerinae, Dorylinae, Myrmicinae, Dolichoderinae and Camponotinae. 
This is not a haphazard arrangement, but the final conclusion drawu 
from the study of ants since the time of Latreille to the present day, 
the Ponerinae consisting of the most ancient and primitive forms of 
ants, dominant in Australia, being first ; and the Camponotinae, which 
is the highest subfamily, last. Bondroit begins with his “ Dorylitae,” 
and then follow his ‘‘ Formicitae,” ‘‘ Poneritae,” ‘* Dolichoderitae,’ and 
“ Myrmicitae”’; an arrangement without reason, or order! 
We are also quite unable to follow his tables—a species which has 
already been separated off in a previous section, is again introduced 
into a subsequent part of the table ; which surely contradicts itself. 
