December 1, 1005.] 



SCIENCE. 



i09 



The following remarks quoted at random 

 from Dr. Cook's paper show the care with 

 which he has studied the literature of his 

 subject. At p. 9 (foot-note) he says : 



With these fungus-cultivating ants and ter- 

 mites, at least, it would seem that a new colony 

 can scarcely be founded by a pair of sexual ter- 

 mites or by a single fecundated female ant unless 

 they carry their domesticated fungus with them. 

 It is possible, however, that in both cases the 

 newly mated insects are adopted and set up in 

 housekeeping and farming by workers of their 

 own species, who bring ' spawn ' of the fungi from 

 the older colony with which they are in com- 

 munication. This might the more readily happen 

 because long subterranean galleries are a promi- 

 nent feature of the architectiire of the fungus- 

 growing insects, both ants and termites. 



Although nothing is known concerning the 

 origin of the fungus gardens among termites, 

 von Ihering, in an article^ which should be 

 known to every botanist, has shown that the 

 colonies of Atta sexdens are established by 

 isolated queens and how these insects carry 

 over the fungus from the maternal nest to their 

 own. These observations have been fully con- 

 firmed by Goeldi* and Huber." At p. 24, Dr. 

 Cook says : ' Copulation has never been ob- 

 served among termites.' On the contrary, it 

 has been repeatedly observed by at least one 

 observer, Dr. Harold Heath.* At p. 19 we 

 find the statement that in ' Leptogenys, the 

 females, though wingless, are very different 

 from the workers.' Miss Holliday and myself 

 have shown in three different papers that the 

 females of this ant can be distinguished from 



^ ' Die Anlage neuer Colonien und Pilzgarten bei 

 Atta sexdens,' Zool. Anzeig., Bd. 21, 1898, pp. 238- 

 245, 1 fig. 



* Forel, ' Einige Biologische Beobachtungen des 

 Herrn, Prof. Dr. Goeldi an brazilianischen 

 Ameisen,' Biolog. Centralbl, XXV., 1905, pp. 170- 

 181. 



° ' Ueber die Koloniengriindung bei Atta sexdens,' 

 Biolog. Centralbl, XXV., 1905, pp. 606-619, 625- 

 635, 26 figs. 



° ' The Habits of California Termites,' Biol. 

 Bull, IV., 2, December, 1902, p. 52. 



' Loco citato, pp. 295-297. ' A Study of some 

 Texan Ponerinse,' Biol. Bull, II., October, 1900, 

 p. 7; and 'A Crustacean-eating Ant {Leptogenys 

 elongata Buckley),' Biol. Bull, VI., 1904, p. 251. 



the workers only by a difference in the size 

 of the abdomen and the enclosed ovaries. At 

 p. 17 we find the following statement : 



It does not appear that the keleps have the art 

 of regurgitating food for tlieir larvae or for each 

 other, but they have, instead, the curious habit of 

 opening tlieir mandibles wide and lapping up 

 drops of nectar, moistened sugar or honey on 

 their mouth-parts. The liquid is thus carried 

 into the nest and dispensed to the other members 

 of the community, old and young. The queen is 

 regularly fed in this way, though in a few in- 

 stances, the queens of captive colonies came to the 

 surface to eat sugar with the workers. 



The mode of expression is varied to read as 

 follows at p. 42 : 



The kelep does not appear to have the art of 

 regurgitating food as do the true ants, but it is 

 the regular custom of the workers to gather up 

 on their mouth parts large drops of nectar, syrup 

 or honey, which are carried into the nest and 

 freely dispensed to the remaining members of the 

 comnuinity, as well as to the queen and larvae. 



To any one familiar with the structure of 

 the mouth-parts of the kelep and with the 

 behavior of ants while they are feeding one 

 another, these statements can only mean that 

 the kelep, like the higher ants, not only in- 

 gurgitates liquid food, but feeds the other 

 members of the colony by regurgitation. Here, 

 again, Dr. Cook makes a botch of an interest- 

 ing observation in his desire to make the kelep 

 out to be a most exceptional creature. 



In another part of the paper he shows that 

 this ant also feeds its young with pieces of 

 insect food in exactly the same manner as I 

 have described for other Ponerinse and some 

 of the higher ants {ApTiwnogaster, Pheidole), 

 and as Janet has shown for Lasius and Adlerz 

 for Tomognathus. Instead of drawing the 

 natural conclusion that the kelep is allied to 

 both the Ponerinse and higher ants. Dr. Cook 

 concludes that its relationships are ' with the 

 parasitic wasps rather than with the ants.' 

 It is evident that he will be satisfied with any 

 relationship except the true one. As a matter 

 of fact, every habit which he describes shows 

 that the kelep is nothing more nor less than a 

 ponerine ant. It differs from the Ponerinse 

 hitherto studied and approaches the higher 



