June 3, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



861 



One need not be very old to recall the time 

 when ants were the most neglected of Amer- 

 ican Hymenoptera. I remember receiving a 

 letter from Dr. W. H. Ashmead, some twenty 

 years ago, in which he urged me to take up 

 the study of ants. The necessary literature 

 he said was not voluminous, material was 

 easily obtained — he himself could supply a 

 large series of species from Florida — and the 

 field was a new and fertile one. Doubtless he 

 urged others in the same manner, always 

 without success. A few American students 

 did a little in a desultory sort of way, but the 

 real authorities on our ants were Europeans, 

 Emery and Forel. Wasps, bees, ichneumons, 

 sawflies, all were being studied and described 

 with zeal; but as for the ants, probably some 

 thought them too difficult, while others 

 supposed they were sufiiciently known, and for 

 one reason or another nobody would have 

 anything to do with them. 



Although this apathy might well have been 

 regretted then, it is impossible to regret it 

 now. The foundations of American myrme- 

 cology had indeed been laid by the Euro- 

 peans, but the building itself was destined to 

 be erected, in the fullness of time, by an 

 American. Dr. Wlieeler published his first 

 contributions to the subject in 1900, and it 

 was at once apparent that the ants had come 

 to their own. Since then he has labored in- 

 cessantly, issuing several important papers 

 every year, and now a large volume discussing 

 every aspect of the life and structure of his 

 favorites. 



It is probably not too much to say that Dr. 

 Wheeler's " Ants " is the best book on ento- 

 mology ever published in this country. In a 

 certain sense, the general text-books of sev- 

 eral eminent authors are much more compre- 

 hensive; a mere treatise on ants seems a very 

 limited affair, dealing with merely a fraction 

 of a single order. This a priori judgment is 

 quickly dispelled on reading the book. Here 

 we have morphology, anatomy, embryology, 

 psychology, physiology, sociology, paleontol- 

 ogy, zoogeography, taxonomy and even phi- 

 losophy dealt with in an illuminating manner ! 

 The ant is presented to us as the hub of the 



universe, and if there is any biological sub- 

 ject which may not be suggested by the study 

 of myrmecology, it is probably of small con- 

 sequence. No other entomological author has 

 been in a position to give us a work at once 

 so comprehensive and so critically written. 

 Those who have produced admirable revisions 

 of particular groups, have usually known 

 little aboat development or habits, and have 

 not so much as seemed aware that their sub- 

 jects had a past. Those who have tried to 

 cover the whole field, or a large part of it, 

 have been obliged to compile much that could 

 not be critically digested, no man being an 

 expert in the whole of entomology. Such a 

 work as the present may be taken to repre- 

 sent an optimum between two extremes, com- 

 bining breadth with depth, neither being sac- 

 rificed to the other, while all is presented in 

 a lucid and entertaining manner. 



It is a model exponent of the new biology, 

 of a method which will, we hope, eventually 

 become as common as it is now rare. It is 

 impossible to give any summary of the con- 

 tents. Very interesting chapters are those on 

 polymorphism, on harvesting and fungus 

 growing ants, on the extraordinary honey- 

 ants, on the slave-makers of various kinds, 

 and on the numerous insects of different 

 orders living in the nests of ants. The chap- 

 ters on sensation, instinct and " plastic be- 

 havior " constitute a little treatise on psychol- 

 ogy. 



Dr. Wheeler remarks that three different 

 views may be entertained concerning the be- 

 havior of ants : " First, it may be said that 

 ants not only have images or ideas as the re- 

 sult of sensory stimulation, but are able to 

 recall them at will, and to refer them to the' 

 past. This would imply that ants, like man,, 

 not only have memory, but also recollection. 

 Second, it may be maintained that ants have- 

 images only as the result of sensory stimula- 

 tion, but are unable to call them up at will, 

 much less to refer them to the absent or the 

 past. This would imply that the insects have 

 sensory association, but not recollection. 

 Third, it may be maintained that ants are 

 unable to form images or ideas and are hence- 



