out, whom we registered as No. 4, another on the 28th, registered as No. 5. Other ants came out occasionally, but not one came to the honey (except the above mentioned) from November 28 till January 3, when another (whom we registered as No. 6) began feeding. After this a friend visited the honey once on the 4th, ouce on the 11th, and again on the 15th, when she was registered as No. 7. Table No. 2 is constructed in the same way, but refers to the nest of Polyergus. The feeders in this case were, at the beginning of the experiment, registered as Nos. 5, 6, and 7. On November 22 a friend, registered as No. 8, came to the honey, and again on December 11; but with these two exceptions the whole of the supplies were carried in by Nos. 5 and 6, with a little help from No. 7. Thinking now it might be alleged that possibly these were merely unusually active or greedy individuals, I imprisoned No. 6 when she came out to feed on the 5th. As will be seen from the table, no other ant had been out to the honey for some days; and it could therefore hardly be accidental that on that very evening another ant (then registered as No. 9) came out for food. This ant, as will be seen from the table, then took the place of No. 6, and (No. 5 being imprisoned on January 11) took in all the supplies, again with a little help from No. 7. So matters continued till the 17th, when I imprisoned No. 9, and then again, i.e. on the 19th, another ant (No. 10) came out for the food, aided, on and after the 22nd, by another, No. 11. This seems to me very curious. From November 1 to January 5, with two or three casual exceptions, the whole of the supplies were carried in by three ants, one of whom, however, did comparatively little. The other two were imprisoned, and then, but not till then, a fresh ant appears on the scene. She carried in the food for a week; and then, she being imprisoned, two others undertook the task. On the other hand, in Nest 1, where the first foragers were not imprisoned, they continued during the whole time to carry in the necessary supplies. The facts therefore certainly seem to indicate that certain ants are told off as foragers, and that during winter, when little food is required, two or three are sufficient to provide it. I have, indeed, no reason to suppose that in our English ants any particular individuals are specially adapted to serve as receptacles of food. M. Wesmael, however, has described1 a remarkable genus (Myrmecocystus mexicanus), brought by M. de Normann from Mexico, in which certain individuals in each nest serve as animated honey-pots. To them the foragers bring their supplies, and their whole duty seems to be to receive the honey, retain it, and redistribute it when required. Their abdomen becomes enormously distended, the intersegmental membranes being so much extended that 1 Bull. de l'Acad des Soi. de Bruxelles, vol. v. p. 771. the chitinous segments which alone are visible externally in ordinary ants seem like small brown transverse bars. The account of these most curious insects given by MM. de Normann and Wesmael has been fully confirmed by subsequent observers; as, for instance, by Lucas, Saunders,2 Edwards, Blake, Loew,5 and McCook.6 6 3 4 On one very important point, however, M. Wesmael was in error; he states that the abdomen of these ah normal individuals ne contient aucun organe; ou plutôt, il n'est lui-même qu'un vaste sac stomacal.' Blake even asserts that the intestine of the insect is not continued beyond the thorax,' which must surely be a misprint; and also that there is no connexion between the stomach and the intestine! These statements, however, are entirely erroneous; and, as M. Forel has shown, the abdomen does really contain the usual organs, which, however, are very easily overlooked by the side of the gigantic crop. I have therefore been much interested in receiving a second species of ant, which has been sent me by Mr. Waller, in which a similar habit has been evolved and a similar modification has been produced. The two species, however, are very distinct, belonging to totally 1 Ann. Soc. Ent. de France, v. p. 111. • Ibid., 1874. American Nat., viii. 1874. • The Honey Ants. different genera; and the former is a native of Mexico, while the one now described comes from Adelaide in Australia. The two species, therefore, cannot be descended one from the other; and the conclusion seems inevitable that the modification has originated independently in the two species. It is interesting that, although these specimens apparently never leave the nest, and have little use therefore for legs, mandibles, &c., the modifications which they have undergone seem almost confined to the abdominal portion of the digestive organs. The head and thorax, antennæ, jaws, legs, &c. differ but little from those of ordinary ants. CHAPTER III. ON THE RELATION OF ANTS TO PLANTS. Ir is now generally admitted that the form and colour, the scent and honey of flowers, are mainly due to the unconscious agency of insects, and especially of bees Ants have not exercised so great an influence over the vegetable kingdom, nevertheless they have by no means been without effect. The great object of the beauty, scent, and honey of flowers, is to secure cross fertilisation; but for this purpose winged insects are almost necessary, because they fly readily from one plant to another, and generally confine themselves for a certain time to the same species. Creeping insects, on the other hand, naturally would pass from one flower to another on the same plant; and as Mr. Darwin has shown, it is desirable that the pollen should be brought from a different plant altogether. Moreover, when ants quit a plant, they naturally creep up another close by, without any regard to species. Hence, even to small flowers, such as many crucifers, composites, saxifrages, &c., which, as far as size is concerned, might well be fertilised by ants, the visits of flying insects are much more advan |