1965] 
Wheeler and Wheeler — Ant Larvae 
25 
to include it in the subfamily Myrmicinae, when he said that the 
fourth tribe (“Myrmicii”) included “les autres genres de la sous- 
famille des Myrmicinae.” And later (1901) he excluded it from the 
Dorylinae when he says, “Done, je maintiens la sous-famille Dory- 
linae limitee aux genres Dorylus, Aenictus, Eciton et Cheliomyrmex 
In Dalla Torre’s “Catalogus” (1893) it was still in the Myrmicinae 
but near Trigonogaster and Pheidologeton. In 1895 Emery was still 
of the opinion that it belonged in the subfamily “Myrmicini” in the 
second tribe (“Myrmicii”) near Huberia and Phacota. But nine 
years later (1904), after describing the female of L. revelierei, he 
returned it to its original subfamily (Dorylinae). In the following 
year in Ashmead’s skeleton it stood between “ fLiomyrmex” and 
Epipheidole in the tribe Stenammini, subfamily Myrmicinae, family 
“Myrmicidae.” In 1907 Santschi described males of 3 species, which 
he referred to the genus Leptanilla and claimed that their doryline 
affinities justified Emery’s original allocation of the genus. It should 
be noted, however, that males of Leptanilla have never been taken 
with females or workers; hence it is not certain that those described 
by Santschi belong to this genus. In the “Genera Insectorum” Emery 
(1910) established for the genus a separate tribe (Leptanillini) in 
the subfamily Dorylinae, where it seemed destined to abide in iso- 
lation: Wheeler (1910), Forel (1917 and 1923), and Wheeler 
(1922) did not disturb it. Wheeler (1923, p. 335) suggested that 
even further isolation might be necessary: “I believe that the tribe 
Leptanillini, which Emery includes among the Dorylinae, will have 
to be separated out as a distinct subfamily (Leptanillinae) . Dr. 
George C. Wheeler finds that the larva of Leptanilla is very aberrant, 
and the characters of the adult are either quite unlike those of other 
Dorylinae or only superficially similar and due to convergence, or 
similarity of subterranean habits.” By 1932 (p. 57) the separation 
had been effected : “Emery, as is well known, regarded the Leptanil- 
linae as constituting a special tribe of the Dorylinae, but Dr. G. C. 
Wheeler and I have raised the group to subfamily rank.” Bernard 
(1951) raised the taxon to family rank. 
Brown and Nutting (1950, p. 124) in their study of the wing 
venation for the family Formicidae wrote: “The position of the 
leptanillines is debatable. They are usually treated as a subfamily by 
modern authors, and the venation is so highly reduced in the forms 
we have seen that little may be deduced from them concerning 
relationships to the other subfamilies.” Brown was apparently still 
puzzled in 1954 (p. 28) for he wrote: “This little subfamily has 
suffered such drastic anatomical reduction in most of the usually 
