The Ants of the Baltic Amber. 
85 
legs and antennae are much stouter and shorter, the scapes do not 
reach beyond the posterior m argin of the head and the funicular 
joints 2 — 10 are scarcely longer than broad. The sculptnre is only 
superficially like that of mesosternalis and vexillarius. The mandibles 
are very sparsely punctate, the clypeus sharply longitudinally rugose, 
the umbilicate foveolse of the head, thongh deep, are further apart, 
so that they are separated by smooth spaces, except on the cheeks; 
on the thorax the foveolae are confined to the dorsal portion of the 
pronotum and base of the epinotum and are absent on the pleurae. 
On the pro- and mesonotum they are rather shallow. The petiole is 
also indistinctly foveolate or coarsely reticulate-rugose posteriorly and 
on the sides. The gaster, scapes and legs are finely and densely 
shagreened and very sparsely punctate. Hairs erect, very sparse, 
distinct only on the body. Color black, with red appendages or red 
throughout. 
I have seen 13 specimens of this species, 8 in the Geolog. Inst. 
Koenigsberg Coli. (XXB 1194, B 11757, XXB 1038 and 5 without 
numbers), 4 in the Klebs Coli. (K 5101, K 4782, K 4206 and K 2613) 
and one in the Wm. Haren Coli. (415). Most of these are in a 
beautiful state of preservation and show the finest details of structnre 
and sculptnre very clearly. 
JDolichoderus (Hypoclinea) tertiarius (Mayr) (Fig. 39). 
Hypoclinea tertiaria Mayr, Beitr. Naturk. Preuss. I, 1868, p. 62, Taf. IV, Figs. 56 
bis 60, $$cT. 
Dolichoderus tertiarius Forel, Bull. Soc. Vaud. Sc. Nat. (2) XV. P. 80, 1878, p. 386; 
Dalia Torre, Catalog. Hymen. VII, 1893, p. 163; Ern. Andre, Bull. 
Soc. Zool. France, XX, 1895, p. 82; Handlirsch, Foss. Insekt. 1908, p. 870. 
Mayr described the worker, female and male of this species in 
considerable detail. Concerning the male there was some doubt in 
Mayr’s mind, but he referred it to this species, because it agreed 
with the worker in size and sculpture. The worker is very much 
like that of D. sculpturatus in size and shape but the sculpture is 
very different. The head, pro- and mesonotum are smooth and finely 
shagreened and lack the deep umbilicate foveolsB of D. sculpturatus , 
although the cheeks are coarsely and sparsely punctate and the pro- 
and mesonotum also have a few scattered punctures. The meso- 
epinotal constriction and petiole are longitudinally rugose and the base 
of the epinotum is covered with shallow foveolae, especially on the 
sides. The sculpture of the female is very similar but the base of 
the epinotum is deeply foveolate, except in the middorsal region 
where there is a smooth, sub-elliptical area. 
