78 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 



species and because it was Forel's intention to regard it as the type, as he 

 subsequently stated in a letter to Emery. 



Azteca Forel. — The type of this genus is not Tapinoma instahilis 

 F. Smith, but Azteca instabilis Forel {'=A. muelleri Emery), as Emery 

 maintains (Genera Insect. Fasc. 137, p. 31, 1912). 



Cataglyphis Forster. — This should rank as an independent genus 

 and not as a subgenus of Myrmecocystus. 



Cephalotes Latreille. — The type is incorrectly cited as Formica 

 cephalotes L. {^Atta cephalotes) instead of F. atrata L. (= Crypto- 

 cerus atratus). The genus Cephalotes was unfortunately regarded by 

 Dalla Torre as a synonym of Atta Fabr., but it is evidently synonymous 

 with and must replace Cryptocerus, as Mr. Eohwer maintains {in lit- 

 teris). Latreille described Cephalotes in the third volume of his Hist. 

 Nat. Crust. Insect., p. 357, which was published in 1802. The only spe- 

 cies cited as an example is Formica atrata. On this same species he also 

 based his genus Cryptocerus in the thirteenth volume of the same work, 

 published in 1804 according to Mr. Eohwer, or 1805 according to Hagen 

 (Biblioth. Ent., p. 453) and Dalla Torre. It is evident, therefore, that 

 Cryptocerus is isogenotypic with the earlier Cephalotes and must be con- 

 signed to the synonymy. 



Condylodon Lund. — The word "monobasic" should be added. 



Cosmacetes Spinola. — The word "monobasic" should be added. 



Crematogaster Lund. — Prof. Emery insists that the name of this 

 genus should not be written Cremastogaster, because Lund, who mentions 

 it only once, gives the word with a single s, and it is not certain that we 

 are dealing with a typographical error. Emery also implies that Bing- 

 ham was wrong in designating Formica scwtellaris Olivier as the generic 

 type. Lund cites no species in connection with Crematogaster, which is 

 saved from being a nomen nudum only by the clear description of the 

 abdomen, which exhibits peculiarities not found in any other genus of 

 ants. As he had in mind only Brazilian species, Emery believes that one 

 of these, e. g., Formica acuta Fabr., should be selected as the type. It 

 might be contended, on the other hand, that in such a widely distributed 

 and homogeneous genus as Crematogaster, it is better to select the com- 

 mon European form C. scufellaris, which is, moreover, closely related to 

 the typical North American C. lineolata Say. At any rate, it is too late 

 to make a change, because Bingham's designation, unless an earlier is 

 found, will have to stand. 



Eciton Latreille. — Shuckard (Swainson and Shuckard, Hist. & Nat. 

 Arrang. Ins., p. 173. 1840) states that Formica hamata Fabr. is the 

 type of this genus. 



