Psyche 
[September 
38 
subgenus of Strumigenys is Labidogenys Roger, which also deserves 
synonymy from present evidence.) In the present paper, “ gundlachi 
group” is used, instead of Pyramica , to include the species gundlachi 
(Roger), eggersi Emery, subedentata Mayr, denticulata Mayr, 
ja?naicensis Brown and trieces n. sp. It should be emphasized, how- 
ever, that the group is arbitrarily limited, and that S. connectens 
and its relatives could as well be included as not. 
The Identity of Pyramica gundlachi Roger 
Roger described Pyramica gundlachi in 1862, only two years after 
Frederick Smith had established Strumigenys. Roger based his 
species on worker and female specimens from Cuba. Roger himself 
quickly ( 1863) recognized that gundlachi was so close to Strumigenys 
that Pyramica would have to fall as a synonym of that genus. In 
1890, Emery demonstrated that gundlachi was a composite species; 
the female was then named as Strumigenys rogeri Emery, a distinct 
species we now know to have been introduced into Cuba from 
Africa. 
In the meantime Mayr (1887) had recharacterized gundlachi 
from a cotype worker that Roger had sent him earlier. Both Roger 
and Mayr described gundlachi as having the inner mandibular 
border unarmed before the apex and as having the ventral apical 
tooth divided. The remainder of the information available indicated 
to me that gundlachi, despite these characters and despite the fact 
that subsequent authors had described varieties in this complex as 
having unarmed preapical masticatory borders, belonged with a 
group including eggersi, denticulata and subedentata and their var- 
ieties and synonyms. Accordingly (without then knowing the con- 
nectens group) I revived Pyramica as a subgenus with gundlachi as 
the (monobasic) type species (Brown, 1948). 
From 1887 until 1948, the true gundlachi was ignored by most 
authors, and its identity wrongly guessed by several others. Finally, 
through the kindness of the late Prof. Bruno Pittioni of the Vienna 
Museum, I was able to examine the critical syntype worker that 
Roger had sent to Mayr. The mandibles of this specimen turned out 
to be encrusted with ancient glue, and, since thisi was the only speci- 
men in Mayr’s collection, it seems clear that he merely followed 
Roger in describing the mandibles. The glue was carefully removed 
with Barber’s fluid, revealing that the mandibles have a full comple- 
ment of preapical denticles and a normal apical fork with two minute 
intercalary denticles. In short, the gundlachi syntype was found to be 
