1975] 
Forsyth — Metapolybia cingulata 
301 
knocked from the nest by YA. After DDT returned, aggressive 
interactions of similar nature were again initiated by YA, but these 
were not successful in displacing DDT. 
There were two basic forms of aggressive contact. In the milder 
form, both individuals stood grasping each other face to face with 
their abdomens pointing towards each other and would vigorously 
antennate each other. In more extreme interactions, YA would 
attempt to bite the abdomen of DDT, who would make stinging 
motions and then break away. 
On June 29 YA was absent from the nest. Colony C was ex- 
changing workers with other colonies at this time (Forsyth, 1976). 
However, YA was not present at any of these colonies and after 
several days was presumed dead. DDT was behaving in a queen- 
like manner, being the only wasp receiving extensive grooming and 
trophallactic donations. 
On July 3 a routine check of colony F revealed the presence of 
YA. This was unexpected as colony F was not exchanging workers 
with colony A and non-interchanging colonies are generally hostile 
to foreign wasps. At this time, YA was behaving as a worker sitting 
quietly on the comb and regurgitating when solicited. 
YA subsequently became more active working on the comb. By 
July 6, YA was exhibiting wing-spreading behavior. On July 7th, 
I found an individual from colony B with one wing chewed in two. 
Dissection revealed this to be a young reproductive female. YA was 
very active and aggressive. YA continued to be a resident in colony 
F until July 13. Shortly after this, colonies C and F were destroyed 
by nearby construction work. Dissection of some wasps salvaged 
from colony B revealed at least one reproductive female to be present. 
Discussion 
One interpretation of these observations is that the failure of an 
older queen (YA) to dominate a younger reproductive (DDT) 
led it to abandon colony C, invade colony F and displace one of the 
resident queens. 
Metapolybia cingulata is known to exchange workers between 
related colonies (Forsyth, 1976). However, in this instance a non- 
interchanging and presumably unrelated colony was the object of 
usurpation. In unrelated colonies the invading female should be 
opposed by not only the resident queen, but also by the workers who 
will “prefer” to rear related offspring. Clearly, there is some subtle 
deception process involved in this particular usurpation. In a small 
