1965] 
Creighton — Macromischa subditiva 
283 
in only one nesting category. Nor was the situation much better 
with most of the 1 1 other species. Seven of these were known from 
two colonies each and two from three colonies each. Thus there 
were only three species ( flavitarsis 5 colonies; wheeleri 8 colonies, 
squamifera 15 colonies) which might be said to furnish more than 
a suggestion of nest preferences. What Wheeler did with these last 
two species is astonishing. He knew that both wheeleri and squamata 
have flexible nesting habits. In 1920 W. M. Mann published obser- 
vations that leave no doubt on this score and I had later amplified 
Mann’s data in a personal communication to Dr. Wheeler (4). 
Yet both wheeleri and squamata each appeared in a single category 
in the nidification list. Thus, although Wheeler saw clearly that 
nesting responses vary widely within the genus Macromischa, he 
failed to appreciate that the nesting response of the individual species 
may also be variable. On the basis of present data it is impossible 
to say what percentage of species in the genus possess flexible nesting 
habits but, if further progress is to be made with the habits of Macro- 
mischa, it is imperative to recognize that some of the species, among 
them subditiva, behave in this fashion. 
Remarkably few records of any kind have been published for M. 
subditiva since Wheeler described this species in 1903 (5). In 1912 
Mitchell and Pierce provided a two-line habit note on specimens 
taken in Victoria County, Texas which repeated the observations 
carried in Wheeler’s original description (6). When M. R. Smith 
monographed our species in 1939 he gave no new data on habits 
and added only one new locality record ( 7 ) . Apparently there are 
no other published records for subditiva, although M. R. Smith 
stated in a paper published in 1947, that the species occurs in Lou- 
isiana (8). This reference is enigmatic, since no locality was cited 
and since repeated surveys in the area between Austin and the 
Louisiana border have failed to turn up subtiva in eastern Texas. 
The record is not included in the list presented in this paper. 
From what has already been said it should be obvious that it is 
important to distinguish between records based on strays and records 
where the nest was found. I have, therefore, divided the records 
into two groups, the first based on strays (Table I), the second on 
nests taken (Table II). 
In six of the above colonies a single female was present. It is 
impossible to say whether this was true of the seventh nest (Wim- 
berley colony) for part of this colony was scattered when the crevice 
in which it was living was forced open. In addition to the female 
