4 
Transactions Texas Academy of Science. 
[ 20 ] 
sericeo-neorufibarbis for this form, which differs from the typical 
neorufibarbis in presenting a darker clouding of the vertex and thoracic 
dorsum. It is the only Formica of the kind occurring in Central Texas. 
It is very common in rather damp, shady localities in Travis and the 
adjoining counties. It must have been known to Buckley, who gives 
Central Texas the first place in his list of localities. Of course, his 
mention of New York, etc., in this connection shows, that he had also 
some other species (in all probability, F. nitidiventris ) in mind while 
he was writing the description. His ethological notes, “very active and 
brave; bites sharply, and emits a strong odor of formic acid,” and 
his description of the workers as being of a “bronze color when first 
caught, or seen in their cells,” can refer only to the Texan form, and to 
no other similar Formica known to me. As the name suggested by 
Emery [in litt.) is rather cumbersome, while Buckley’s is very brief and 
descriptive, I would, suggest that the mid-Texan form of Formica fusca 
be henceforth known as var. guava, Buckley. 
6. Formica occidentals ; female, worker. N. Y. ; Conn. 
Emery (’94, p. 337) suggests that this may be Lasius claviger, Mayr. 
It is evident that the description refers to a yellow Lasius, but the spe- 
cies of this genus are too difficult of separation to be identified from 
descriptions like those of Buckley. 
7. Formica monticola; female, worker. N. Y. 
This, too, is a yellow species of Lasius ; and as the head of the female 
is described as being narrower than the thorax, we may suppose that 
Buckley had before him specimens of L. m,yops , Forel, or L. brevicornis, 
Emery, but, as in the case of the preceding species, there is no possible 
way of deciding. 
8. Formica gracilis ; female, worker. N. Y. 
Very probably, as Emery suggests (’94, p. 337), the common Tapi- 
noma sessile, Say. It may be safely put down as a synonyn of that com- 
mon and well-known Dolichoderine. 
9. Formica parva ; worker. D. C. 
The small size (.1 inch) would indicate that this can hardly be a 
Formica. It may be merely a small form of the preceding.. The 
description is utterly worthless. 
10. Formica atra; worker. D. C. 
This is evidently a Camponotus. Emery suggests that it may be the 
same as the form which he has called C. marginatus, subsp. discolor, 
var. cnemidatus. 
11. Formica virginiana; worker. D. C. 
Perhaps a variety of F. pallide-fulva, Latr., according to Emery (’94, 
p. 337). 
