1982] 
Traniello — Amblyopone pallipes 
75 
grooming. The retrieval process varies in duration depending upon 
prey size, but even long (4. 0-5. 0cm, 2. 0-2. 5 mm in diameter) geo- 
philomorph centipedes are easily dragged to the nest. A number of 
orientation trips made between the prey and the nest generally pre- 
ceded retrieval. During these orientation runs, which were made 
throughout the retrieval process, workers continually checked their 
position relative to the nest. The prey was then dragged several 
centimeters; the worker then stopped, released the prey, and con- 
tinued homeward until she contacted the nest entrance. She then 
returned to the prey and repeated this sequence, alternating prey 
movement with orientation trips. Once the prey was in the nest, 
other workers approached and began vigorously licking the areas of 
the prey’s body opened during capture. Larvae were either carried to 
the prey or, if close enough, moved toward it and adjusted their 
position on its body on their own accord. At times workers assisted 
in positioning larvae. Additional details of feeding behavior are 
nearly identical to those described by Gotwald and Levieux (1972). 
Communication during foraging. At times, two or three ants 
attempted to jointly carry prey, but cooperative efforts were hap- 
hazard and inefficient. But cooperative retrieval seems unnecessary 
due to the physical capabilities of individual ants. The critical ele- 
ment in prey capture is probably not retrieving, but subduing rela- 
tively large arthropods. Often after a worker began stinging a prey 
item, a second or third worker approached and assisted in para- 
lyzing the prey. The fact that workers were attracted to the point of 
prey capture suggested that additional ants may be recruited over 
short distances by orienting to prey odor, air currents, or some 
signal produced by the forager. To test the hypothesis that phero- 
mones are involved in this process I stimulated foragers to grasp and 
attempt to sting the tip of a pair of forceps and then lowered the 
worker, still attacking the forceps tip, in front of the nest entrance. 
The response of workers in the nest was dramatic. In five replicates, 
5.8 ± 2.3 workers/0.5 min approached the nest entrance under the 
experimental conditions. Only 0.2 ± 0.1 workers/0.5 min were 
attracted to the nest entrance in controls (agitated forceps alone). 
This difference is statistically significant (.001 < p < .01; t = 6.1, 
Student’s t-test). Although the possibility that stridulatory signals 
might be involved could not be ruled out, the results of these experi- 
ments suggest that chemical cues are involved in the attraction 
