1952] 
Creighton — Camponotus papago 
149 
of Michoacan, Mexico (1). It is hard to understand why 
Emery felt that this specimen should be named. During 
the fifty years of entomological work which lay behind 
him, Emery had often struggled with the difficulties that 
result whenever a new species of ant is based on a dis- 
sociated female. Moreover, by 1920 the importance of ac- 
curate field data to an original description was clearly 
recognized. Yet Emery elected to describe an insect which 
wholly lacked significant field data. That the ant was 
known to have been taken in Michoacan is of scant signi- 
ficance, for that state has a singularly diverse topography 
and a corresponding diversity of biotic associations. Final- 
ly, Emery’s description of cerberulus was brief and without 
figures. It was certain from the start that this description 
would be a source of trouble for, under the circumstances, 
nothing but a miracle could prevent subsequent confusion 
in the case of cerberulus. 
Most of Emery’s short description of cerberulus con- 
sists of a comparison of his unique type with the female 
of Wheeler’s etiolatus. From the nature of this compari- 
son it is evident that Emery had specimens of etiolatus at 
the time that he wrote the description of cerberulus. When 
Wheeler described etiolatus in 1904 (2) he presented no 
figure of the female and his description of that caste lacks 
certain features which Emery later cited. It is certain, 
therefore, that Emery had authentic material of etiolatus , 
probably from that part of the type series which Wheeler 
sent to Forel. It would otherwise have been impossible 
for Emery to have presented the characterization of the 
etiolatus female which he used in his comparison with the 
female of cerberulus. 
The fact that this comparison utilized the female of 
etiolatus may well be what led Wheeler to believe that 
he could recognize the essential features which distinguish 
cerberulus; for Wheeler had type females of etiolatus in 
his own collection and with these as a guide he could 
secure a much more exact idea of the female of cerberulus 
than would be expected from Emery’s brief account of 
that insect. It is now certain that Wheeler overestimated 
the utility of Emery’s description. It is good enough to 
