[ 21 ] 
Buckley’s North American Formicidae. 
5 
12. Formica arenicola ; worker. D. C. 
Buckley’s description of this species agrees pretty well with speci- 
mens of Prenolepis imparis , Say, which sometimes nests in very sandy 
soil. But this ant is decidedly hairy, and Buckley expressly states that 
his form is “not hairy.” 
13. Formica politurata; worker. Mich. 
Emery suggests (’94, p. 338) that this may be a variety of F. fusca, 
subsp. subpolita , Emery, but the description agrees about equally well 
with F. lasioides , Em., var. picea, Em. The name and description may 
be safely discarded as worthless. 
14. Formica septentrional e ; female, worker. Mich. ; 111. 
Evidently a Camponotus which Emery (’94, p. 338) believes may be 
a variety of C. marginatus, Latr. 
15. Formica floridana ; worker. Fla. 
Recognized by Emery (’93, p. 670) as a variety of Camponotus 
abdominalis, Fabr., and listed as C. a., var. floridanus , Buckley. Mayr 
(’86, p. 423) obtained one of Buckley’s types of this species from Nor- 
ton. 
16. Formica tejonia ; male. Cala. 
The absence of the discal cell, which is nearly always present in For- 
mica, indicates that this is a Camponotus. Buckley’s description agrees 
well with males of C. maculatus, Fabr., subsp. vicinus, Mayr, var. niti- 
diventris, Em., from California. 
17. Formica tenuissima ; worker. Tex. 
Mayr (’86, p. 432) believed that this was very probably Forelius 
(Iridomyrmex) McCooki, Eorel. I cannot accept this determination 
for three reasons: First, Buckley could not have recorded this species 
as “rare”; second, he has given a description of McCooki as F. fcetida 
(see No. 27) ; third, Buckley’s F. tenuissima is very probably a variety 
of Brachymyrmex Heerii, Forel, with pale yellow males and rather 
hairy body in the worker. This form is really rare in Central Texas 
according to my own observations, and occurs “in the ground beneath 
stones,” as Buckley says. The description does not, however, completely 
fit my specimens. 
18. Formica perminuia; worker. Tex. 
This form was regarded by Emery as perhaps a species of Brachymyr- 
mex. It may be the form referred to in connection with the preceding 
species. But Buckley’s description also agrees very well with immature 
workers of a small Prenolepis very common under stones in Central 
Texas (see No. 19). This is another very dubious and therefore worth- 
less description. 
