564 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST. [Vor. XXXIV. 
Aenictus = male; Typhlatta = worker; 9 unknown. 
KAogmus,; male; female unknown (according to Emery the worker is 
very small and like A/laopone). 
Anomma ; only worker known; male probably a Dorzy/us. 
Dorylus = male ; Dichthadia = 9 ; Alaofone and Typhlopone = workers. 
Until last year the only known insect that could be regarded 
as a female Eciton was the Pseudodichthadia, included in the 
above table. It was described by André as P. incerta in a 
paper which I have not seen. It has been supposed to be the 
female of Eciton ommivorum Ol(=cacum Latr.! “but his 
e a description and figure are im- 
r^ ur T E perfect and do not greatly 
support his idea of a connec- 
tion between Eciton and Pseu- 
dodichthadia.’’? 
Professor Forel, while on 
a visit to the United States 
during the summer of 1899, 
discovered in North Carolina 
what is undoubtedly the fe- 
male of Eciton carolinense 
Emery. He has drawn up 
a good description of the 
insect, but without a figure, 
br cse aM he 2^ in a letter to the Belgian 
Entomological Society? In 
this article and in a paper by Wasmann* I find mention of the 
fact that Schmitt had previously (1894) taken this insect in 
the same region. 
For some months past I have been engaged in a study of the 
nests of the species of ants which abound in the vicinity of 
Austin, Texas, the locality of the classical studies of McCook 
1 According to Emery (Beiträge zur Kenntnis der nordamerikanischen Ameisen- 
fauna, Zool. Jahrb., Abth. f. System, etc., Bd. viii, p. 258) the male of this form is 
Labidus latreillei Jurine $ L. Sayi Haldem). 
? Sha Ot. 6L, p 
3 Ann. de la Soc. pene de Belgique, tome xliii (1899), pp. 438-447- 
t Ein neuer Gast von Eciton carolinense, Deutsche Entomol. Zeitschr., Heft ii 
(1899), pp. 409, 410. 
