860 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIII. No. 857 



since its type, M. militaris, is closely related 

 to Gerstacker's schistacea.'' The species of 

 Myrma may then be grouped under several 

 subgenera, names for two of which are here 

 suggested for the first time, as follows: 



Genus Mtbma Billberg (_1820) = PolyrhacMs F. 

 Smith (1858). 



1. Subgenus: Campomyrma subgen. nov. 



= Cohors Polyrhaehides eamponotif ormes Emery. 

 Type: Polyrhachis clypeata Mayr. 



2. Subgenus: Myrma 'BiilheTg = Hoplomyrmus 



Gerst. 

 = Cohors Polyrhaehides carinatas Emery. 

 Type: Formica militaris Eabr. 



3. Subgenus: Polyrhachis F. Smith. 



::= Cohors Polyrhaehides hamatse Emery. 

 Type: Formica iihamata Drury. 



4. Subgenus: Hagiomyrma subgen. nov. 

 = Cohors Polyrhaehides areiferee Emery. 



Type: Formica ammon Fabr. 



5. Subgenus: Semioptica Roger. 



Type: Eemioptica scissa Roger, 



A third generic name, Formicina Shkd., 

 which has been overlooked, is mentioned in the 

 foregoing citation from the work of Swainson 

 and Shuckard. This citation and the context 

 seem to show that Shuckard accepted Formica 

 Linn, in a restricted sense as the equivalent of 

 what we now know as Camponotus Mayr., 

 probably with the type Formica herculeana 

 Linn., but this is open to doubt since no 

 species is cited. On the same page two well- 

 known ants are mentioned as species of 

 Formicina, viz., F. rufa Linn, and F. flava 

 Fabr. If only the former species had been 

 mentioned, we might have been compelled to 

 change our modern genus Formica to Formi- 

 cina, but as Shuckard included also F. flava 

 (which is at present Lasius flavus) in the 

 same genus, we see that Formicina is merely 

 a synonym of Formica as used by Fabricius 

 and his contemporaries, possibly minus the 

 group now known as Camponotus. Under the 

 circumstances I can see no reason to replace 

 any of the modern subdivisions of the old 

 Linnean genus Formica with Formicina 

 Shuckard. 



W. M. Wheeler 



' According to Emery schistacea is merely a sub- 

 species of militaris. 



ON MUSCOID AND ESPECIALLY TACHINID 

 SYNONYMY 



The time seems ripe for a few remarks on 

 this subject. There exists in the superfamily 

 Muscoidea an immense taxonomic field await- 

 ing exploitation, and it is to be hoped that it 

 will attract many able workers imbued with a 

 proper sense of responsibility, for it is at the 

 same time a biologic field of first importance 

 and magnitude as regards arthropod and gen- 

 eral invertebrate evolution. Only one caution 

 is necessary to those who would enter this 

 field, as well as to those already in it — and this 

 applies as well to all workers in whatever field 

 — which is to do one's work so thoroughly as 

 to secure absolute finality before drawing posi- 

 tive conclusions. In other words, do not make 

 an unqualified statement before going to the 

 bottom of the matter in hand. Results se- 

 cured during the past three years have demon- 

 strated conclusively that finality in the tax- 

 onomy, and consequently in the synonymy, 

 can not be secured in this superfamily by the 

 oii-hand comparison, or even by the most care- 

 ful study, of external adult characters alone. 



Mr. D. W. Coquillett, in his " Revision of 

 the Tachinidse of America north of Mexico," ' 

 without the knowledge just mentioned and 

 thus without any true conception of the great 

 difficulties before him, moreover without a 

 good eye for external characters and with 

 little appreciation of their importance, but 

 nevertheless with the best of intentions, at- 

 tempted to group these flies comprehensively 

 and indicated extensive but often incorrect 

 synonymy, lumping even distinct genera under 

 one species in the most uncouth but seemingly 

 plausible manner. We can not but admire the 

 industry and ingenuity which have contrib- 

 uted to produce this work, while we deplore its 

 great lack of quality. Dr. J. M. Aldrich, in 

 his " Catalogue of the North American Dip- 

 tera," ' also without the above knowledge but 

 with a somewhat better eye for external char- 

 acters, though following Mr. Coquillett quite 

 faithfully in the main, has resurrected a few 



^ Teehn. Ser. Bull. No. 7, Div. Ent., U. S. Dept. 

 Agr., 1897. 



= ' ' Smiths. Misc. Colls., ' ' No. 1444, 1905. 



