1937] 
Habits of Strumigenys 
109 
against the top of the nest whence it was deflected to the 
floor at a point not much more than three-quarters of an inch 
from its original position. Had the leap been unimpeded it 
would probably have been more extensive. The second case 
occurred under similar circumstances and with much the 
same result. As far as I am aware this is the third time in 
which retrosalience has been reported for a member of the 
genus Strumigenys. Hetschko (teste Mayr) observed it in 
the South American S. saiiens about 1887 (5) and ten years 
later Biro ( teste Emery) saw the same phenomenon in the 
case of S. chyzeri which he studied in New Guinea (6) . Each 
of the above accounts is rather meager but it seems likely 
that both species frequently resorted to retrosalience. It is 
not impossible that it had come to play a protective role in 
their habits as is the case with Anochetus and Odonton- 
tomachus. I cannot believe that retrosalience plays any such 
part in the case of S. louisianae. The phenomenon is so rare 
and the conditions which would produce it so unusual that it 
must play little or no part in the ecology of this form. 
LITERATURE CITED 
1. Smith, M. R. Ann. Ent. Soc. America. Vol. XXIV, No. 4, p. 690, 
(1931). 
2. Kennedy, C. H. & Schramm, M. M. Ibid. Vol. XXVI, No. 1, p. 104, 
(1933). 
3. Wheeler, W. M. & Bailey, I. W. Trans. American Philos. Soc. N.S., 
Vol. XXII, No. 4, p. 247-248, (1920). 
4. Creighton, W. S. Jour. New York Ent. Soc. Vol. XXXVIII, p. 177, 
(1930). 
5. Mayr, G. Zool-bot. Ges. Wien Vol. XXXVII, p. 575, (1887). 
6. Emery, C. Term. Fiizetek, Vol. XX, p. 576, (1897). 
