350 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIII. No. 583. 



elongata of Texas, have been seen in an Indian 

 species. 



3. It is not I, but Dr. Cook, who has been 

 studying the habits of the kelep. I have been 

 trying to interpret his observations in the 

 light of what I have seen in other ants. He 

 claims that I ' was quite unable to believe that 

 the kelep would kill boll-weevils.' Reference 

 to my previous papers will show that this is 

 an unfair and purely gratuitous statement. I 

 have never doubted his observations on this 

 point, but merely the ability of the ants to 

 keep at the good work of killing the pests 

 with sufficient concentration and perseverance 

 to make them a considerable factor in the 

 extermination of the boll-weevil. 



4. Dr. Cook endeavors to show that I am 

 wrong in inferring that the keleps can in- 

 gurgitate and regurgitate liquid food. He 

 says that they " persist in going about with 

 large, round drops of nectar on their bills. 

 They regularly carry it into their nests in this 

 way, and feed it to their friends and families 

 without having once swallowed it, or spewed 

 it up again. This incredible conduct is very 

 easy of observation," etc. If this observation 

 were beyond suspicion, I should be the last to 

 reject it as a proof of Dr. Cook's contention, 

 for the very reason that it agrees so well with 

 the many primitive habits I have detected in 

 the PonerinsE that have come under my own 

 observation. But I still have serious doubts 

 on this subject, not because Dr. Cook's state- 

 ment conflicts with anything in the ' literature 

 of the subject ' — on the contrary, it confirms 

 my own statements on Cerapachys — but be- 

 cause I have seen large camponotine ants 

 carrying drops of liquid on their mouth parts 

 when they had ingurgitated as much food as 

 they could hold in their crops. Is Dr. Cook 

 sure that none of the liquid is drawn into the 

 crop of the kelep and that this is not regurgi- 

 tated to members of the family after the hang- 

 ing drop has been disposed of? Remarkably 

 concise observations would be required to make 

 sure of this point, and as soon as Dr. Cook 

 can produce these I shall be only too glad to 

 accept them. 



5. Dr. Cook's remarks on the phylogeny and 

 classifications of the ponerine ants are thrown 



ofl: in a haphazard, hit-or-miss fashion not at 

 all reassuring to those who can appreciate the 

 long and serious study devoted to these sub- 

 jects by men like Gustav Mayr, Roger, Forel, 

 Emery, Ernest Andre and others. Tracing 

 phylogenies is at best a very dubious and high- 

 ly speculative performance, but it may be said 

 that the phylogenies in question have not only 

 been traced, contrary to Dr. Cook's assertion, 

 but they have been so conscientiously traced 

 that there is practical unanimity on the sub- 

 ject among myrmecologists. The ants of the 

 higher subfamilies (Myrmicinffi, Dolicho- 

 derinae and Camponotinse) have been derived 

 from the Ponerinse, and it has long been known 

 that this primitve subfamily embraces more 

 disparate groups of genera than are to be 

 found in any of the subfamilies of recent 

 development. This is, of course, quite in har- 

 mony with what is known of many other 

 archaic groups of animals and plants. 



William Morton Wheeler. 



SPECIAL ARTICLES. 



RAMBUR AND THE NATURE OF SPECIES. 



In a volume entitled ' Histoire Naturelle 

 des Insectes,' published in 1842, by Dr. M. P. 

 Rambur, prior to Darwin, Wallace and Wag- 

 ner, there are certain very sage reflections on 

 the nature of genera and species. My atten- 

 tion has been called to this work by Mr. For- 

 dyce Grinnell. I append an extract which is 

 worth reading even at the present day. I 

 place the sentences referring to the effect of 

 varied environment on species-forming in 

 italics. 



Dr. Rambur says : 



II ne faut pas se faire illusion, la classification 

 n'est pas la science, n'est pas I'histoire naturelle, 

 elle n'est qu'un moyeu factice pour arriver a la 

 connaissance des diff^rents gtres qui se trouvent 

 dans la nature. Certes c'est un progrfes heureux 

 de I'avoir bas6e sur des rapports plus ou moins 

 naturels (quoique quelquefois insuffisants) ; mais 

 la science est surtout la connaissance de I'gtre 

 qu'on appelle esp&ce, I'histoire naturelle est cette 

 connaissance, et celle des rapports nombreux 

 d'organisation et de moeurs que les espfeces pr6- 

 sentent entre elles. II ne faut done pas reculer 

 devant le mot cspdce, il faut chercber a le com- 

 prendre; toute la science est 15; c'est s'en ^carter 



