No. 565] GYN ANDROMORPHOUS ANTS 



55 



and designated as a "Zwitter" (gynandromorph) of 

 Hypoclinea constricta Mayr, or Iridomyrmex constrictus 

 as we must now call the species. Through the kindness 

 of Prof. A. Tornquist, of the University of Konigsberg, 

 I have been able to examine this specimen in connection 

 with many other amber Formicidae. The general struc- 

 ture of the head, thorax and gaster is that of a worker, 

 though the thorax is not typical, as the base of the epino- 

 tum is less convex and less abruptly elevated, so that the 

 angle between it and the declivity is less pronounced in 

 profile. Mayr does not mention that the eyes are decid- 

 edly larger and more convex than in the normal worker 

 and therefore more like those of the male. There are a 

 few small white spots or bubbles on the vertex, which re- 

 semble small ocelli, but these organs seem to be actually 

 absent. The antennae are 13-jointed and very long, as in 

 the male ; the scapes, however, are like those of the worker, 

 but extend well beyond the posterior borders of the head, 

 whereas joints 2-11 of the funiculi are cylindrical, sub- 

 equal and fully three times as long as broad, the terminal 

 joint being somewhat longer than these, the first shorter. 

 In the gaster, which is shaped as in the normal worker, 

 there are five distinctly visible segments, but the tip shows 

 clearly the small, hairy, external genital valves (stipes) 

 of the male. The legs are also more slender than in the 

 normal worker and therefore more like those of the male. 



At first sight this singular insect seems to be a gynandro- 

 morph, as Mayr supposed, or more specifically, an erga- 

 tandromorph of the blended type, with worker characters 

 preponderating in the trunk and those of the male pre- 

 ponderating in the eyes, appendages and genitalia. It is 

 possible, however, to regard this specimen as an ergato- 

 morphic male, like those which occur normally in certain 

 species of Ponera, Cardiocondyla, Formicoxenus, Sym- 

 myrmica and Technomyrmex. Unfortunately we are not 

 in a position to decide between these alternatives, because 

 we are dealing with a single fossil specimen and are not 

 even sure that it belongs to the species to which Mayr 



