[ 19 ] 
Buckley’s North American Formicidae. 
3 
But after all attempts at identifying Buckley’s species by Mayr, 
Emery, and myself, there still remains a most perplexing residuum con- 
sisting of a number of forms belonging to difficult genera like Formica , 
Camponotus , Lasius, Prenolepis , Myrmica, Pheidole , Cremastog aster, 
etc. In my opinion, these will never be recognized, and should be con- 
signed to that taxonomic rubbish-heap -which has for many years past 
been receiving the worthless entomological names and descriptions of 
Walker, Macquart, Bigot, F. Smith, and others. 
In the following pages 1 have seen fit to cite Buckley’s species seri- 
atim with their conjectural identifications. I am not aware of having 
made any effort to strain a point in favor of Buckley, — for I hold that 
no zoologist deserves a particle of credit for writing a worse than use- 
less description, — but if I have succeeded in throwing a little light on 
some of his species, I could wish this to be regarded as a tribute to a 
pioneer naturalist who long ago searched the woods and hill-slopes of 
Texas, collecting ants and observing their ways “with much pleasure 
and satisfaction.” 
1. Formica nova-anglce ; female, worker. Maine. 
This may be F. exsectoides , Forel, or some form of F. rufa, L. (e. g., 
F. obscuripes , Forel), but the description is too vague, and should be 
discarded. 
2. Formica Nortonii ; female, worker. Conn. 
Probably either F. pallide-fulva , Latr., subsp. nitidiventris , Emery, or 
F. obscuripes , Forel, but the description is worthless like the preceding. 
3. Formica americana; female, worker. Conn. 
This is very probably one of the northern varieties of Camponotus 
marginatus , Latr. (e. g., var. minutus, Emery), as Emery (’93, p. 676; 
’94, p. 337) suggests; since the female is described as black with the 
exception of the mouth-parts and legs, and has no discal cell, whereas 
the worker has a red thorax. The description, however, is too vague, 
and Emery’s varietal name should not be supplanted by Buckley’s. 
4. Formica connecticutensis ; female, worker. Conn. ; N. Y. ; D. C. 
This is almost certainly a form of F. fusca, L., but the description 
is so loose as to apply to any of the following subspecies and varieties, 
which are not uncommon, as I know from collecting in Connecticut : 
F. fusca., var. subsericea , Say, var. subcenescens, Em., and subsp. sub- 
polita , Em., var. neog agates , Em. 
5. Formica gnava; male, female, worker. Texas; D. C. ; N. Y. ; Conn. 
Buckley certainly included several species of Formica under this 
name. The description throughout was evidently drawn from a Texan 
variety of F. fusca. intermediate between var. subsericea, Say, and 
var. neorufibarbis , Em. Emery suggests (in litteris) the name sub- 
