98 
Psyche 
[December 
I regard the specimens as identical with that form of S. 
louisianae described by Dr. M. R. Smith as the subspecies 
laticeyhala. It may be recalled that Dr. Smith in his mono- 
graph of the North American Strumigenys (1) expressed 
the belief that the range of the subspecies laticeyhala might 
be more extensive than his published records indicated. The 
locality of the colony described herein fully supports Dr. 
Smith’s supposition and at the same time furnishes a new 
northeastern record not only for the subspecies but for the 
subgenus as well. The insects were secured on April 22 in a 
well-developed stand of pine a mile or two to the east of 
Rocky Mount, North Carolina. The previous records of this 
subspecies were limited to Mississippi and Alabama where 
its known range extended almost to the northern border of 
each state. In point of fact the North Carolina record is only 
about eighty miles further to the north but the wide swing 
to the east is very significant. It definitely places laticeyhala 
with that interesting group of southern species whose range 
begins in the Gulf States and extends northward through the 
tidewater area of the Atlantic seaboard. It is, perhaps, not 
too much to assume that the northern end of the range of 
laticeyhala may lie in the New Jersey pine barrens. 
On reaching home the fifteen surviving workers were 
placed in a small plaster nest. In addition I placed in the 
nest chambers a quantity of the bark which had formed the 
walls of the original nest. Except for shredding this bark 
so that it would not interfere with the closing of the glass 
top of the nest it was in its original condition. This was done 
with a view to promoting fungal growth since Kennedy 
and Schramm, in a paper published in 1933 (2) had postu- 
lated that these insects might be fungus feeders. Their 
supposition was based upon an analysis of S. ( Ceyhaloxys ) 
ohioensis, a species which they described in the same paper. 
After boiling the insects in KOH the cleared specimens were 
examined for chitinous remains of other insects. The results 
were negative, no such fragments being found. Accordingly 
Kennedy and Schramm gave up the idea that Strumigenys is 
insectivorous because they believe that such fragments occur 
“in the bodies of other ants which feed on insects”. I find 
this statement confusing. I presume that it must refer to 
the infra-buccal pocket which sometimes contains chitinous 
