1988] Haskins & Haskins — Pheidole and Iridomyrmex 183 
the earlier surveys. The genus Odontomachus, ( insularis and brun- 
nei), present in later surveys, was reported from Bermuda by Dahl 
(1902), together with P. megacephala and was relatively abundant in 
1927. It is now a rare form. Other long-term survivors include the 
genus Brachymyrmex (still relatively abundant in niches unoccupied 
by either tramp species) and the genera Paratrechina, Cardiocon- 
dyla, Hypoponera, and Wasmannia. Several of these are well 
known West Indian species, some themselves relatively invasive. So 
a number could represent relatively recent arrivals or successive 
reoccupations. Thus Paratrechina was first described by Crowell in 
his survey. On the other hand, a number seem to have been in 
Bermuda on a long-continuing basis despite the disturbances 
around them. In addition to Odontomachus insularis, for instance, 
Hypoponera opaciceps seems to have been recorded as early as 
1902, and Wasmannia auropunctata was recognized by the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture and Fisheries of Bermuda as early as 1950 
(Crowell, 1968). 
In the course of their 1963 survey, Haskins and Haskins visited a 
number of the small islands in the Great Sound, including Hinson, 
Darrell, Ports, Long, and Hawkins, all at that time undeveloped and 
unoccupied. In all of them, pure and dense stands of P. megace- 
phala were found, with no trace of /. humilis. This is probably not 
surprising, given the “budding” mode of colony propagation typical 
of /. humilis, in which young queens in the polyginic communities, 
fertilized within the community, typically omit the nuptial flight and 
remain in the parental nest, migrating with worker groups to found 
new sub-associations. These islands in Great Sound and other sim- 
ilar ones do not seem to have been examined since. It would be 
interesting to do so again, especially in such a location as Five Star 
Island in Southampton Parish, lying very close to an area of the 
mainland heavily populated with /. humilis. 
Finally, attention should be drawn to the fact that no account was 
taken in this last survey (nor perhaps in the others) of the possible 
effects of the use of insecticides on any of the sites. There seems no 
way to check this element with any certainty, but we believe it 
unlikely that it has been a significant factor, since none of the sites 
examined (with the possible exception of the immediate vicinity of 
Hamilton itself) included crop or garden areas. The great majority 
involved roadside verge-land or rough and unimproved brush areas. 
