THE ANTS OF FRANCE AND BELGIUM. 75 
. which embraces the intermediate forms between F. rufa and F’. 
pratensis. 
Two new varieties—var. gronvellei of F. rufa and var. cordiert of 
F. pratensis are brought forward on female specimens only! It would 
be easy to go to any locality where large colonies of F’. rufa occur, 
such as Weybridge for example, and take specimens from the different 
nests, or even from the same nest, and describe new species and 
varieties from the extreme forms, but no good to the study of ants, or 
indeed to entomology could arise from such a proceeding. 
A new species near F’. easecta—F. dalcqui—is described, but its 
characters are differentiated from I’. easecto-pressilabris, Forel, which is 
itself a variety intermediate between I’. easecta, Nyl., and F’. pressilabris, 
Nyl.! 
The table for the genus Myrmica is quite: incomprehensible to us, 
the same species appear several times under the different sections in 
the most bewildering manner—thus the new species (?) roland? is first 
said to have the frontal area smooth and shining. and then finely 
striate! In the description it is given as sometimes a little shining 
and sometimes dull and striate. He compares it with specioides, 
another new species (?), which he has already pointed out is probably 
the J. sabuleti, Forel ! 
Under M. rugulosoides, Forel, and M. sabuleti, Meinert, he says 
that the former is the sabuleti, Forel, not Meinert; and that specimens 
he considered to be the latter, Emery said were schencki, Hmery; and 
leaves it at that ! 
M. sulcinodis in the description is correctly said to have the scape 
stronely bent at the base, whereas in the table it is said to be only 
‘slightly bent ! < 
M. lobicornis, a variable species, is given as an alpine species only ; 
though it occurs in Surrey and other lowland localities. 
M. arduennae, Bondroit (of which he describes a new variety) is in 
our Opinion only a form of M. lobicornis, Nyl., and M. wesmaeli a form 
of M. scabrinodis, Nyl. Myrmecina kutteri, Forel, is an aberration, not 
a ‘“oynoide,” of M. graminicola, Latr. 
The difficult genus Leptothorax ig rendered still more complicated 
by the creation of no less than 10 new species and 4 new varieties ! 
A new variety of LL. niyriceps, Mayr, is given as “ var. pyrenaeus, 
n.var. (=tuberwm, Nyl.),” which is absurd. If the tuberin, Nyl., is a 
variety of nigriceps, Mayr., which we do not admit for one minute, 
then it should be written Leptothorax niyriceps, Mayr., var. tuberum, 
Nylander, and not with anyone’s new fancy name. 
L. cordiert, n.sp., is described from a single worker!, and its new 
variety rougeti from numerous specimens in the Museum at Brussels 
determined by Rouget as“ L. tudbernm. The probability is that both 
this so called new species and its variety are nothing but L. tuberwn, 
Nyl. Under Messor a variety of M. structor, Latr., is mentioned as 
‘var. vel. sp.?”, and is said to be the J/. sordidus, Forel, and the M. 
structor, Hmery (nec Latreille); and M. bowvier’?, Bondroit, is written 
“ M. bouvier’, nov. nom.—capitatust auct. (nec Latr.).” Apparently 
all previous authors are wrong, and he fails to see why Emery should 
eall it the Formica capitata, Latreille, which is common in the environs 
of Bordeaux. 
It is with much regret that we have had to express such an 
