VOL. XVIII, pp. 157-160 JUNE 9, 1905 



PROCEEDINGS 



OF THE 



BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 



MAMATA AND MAMAIIDJL 

 BY THOMAS R. R. STUBBING. 



Parental affection will excuse and may almost demand on my 

 part a defense of the terms Mamaia and Ma-maiidae against the rival 

 claims of Pammaya, recently advocated by Miss Mary J. Rath- 

 bun in these proceedings (Vol. XVIII, p. 73, February 21, 

 1905). We are in substantial agreement as to the general prin 

 ciples that should govern zoological nomenclature, but the facts 

 of the particular case to which those principles are applied re 

 quire to be rather narrowly scrutinized. Briefly to recapitulate, 

 the position is this : Lamarck in 1801 published a generic 

 name Maja (or Mam), which by prompt transfer came into use 

 for the crab known down to the present day as Maia squinado 

 (Herbst). This Maja or Mala is now admitted to be untenable.. 

 In 1837 de Haan published, without description, two figures of 

 a species called on the plate " Pisa (Pammaya) spinigera, n." 

 In 1839 he published a description of " Maja (Maja) spinigera, 

 n. sp.," with a reference to the plate "T. XXIV. f. 4 9 (Para- 

 maya)," and in 1849, under " Errata in tabulis specierum," he 

 writes " Tab. XXIV. fig. 4: Maja (Param-aya) spinigera n.; 

 loge : M. (Maja) spiniy." It should be noticed that neither in 

 U 39 nor in 1849 does de Haan quote the plate legend quite 

 accurately, since on both occasions he uses Paramaya, a word of 

 four syllables, instead of Paramaya, which by the marks of 

 diaeresis was made a word of five syllables, unless we take the y 



26 PKOC. Bror,. Soc. WASH., VOL. XVIII. 1905. (157) 



