Vol. XVIII, pp. 157-160 June 9, 1905 



PROCEEDINGS 



BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 

 t 



\ 



MAMAIA AND MAMAIID^. 

 BY THOMAS R. R. 8TRBBING. 



Parental affection will excuse and may almost demand on my 

 part a defense of the terms Mamaia and Mamaiidfe against the rival 

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

 bmi 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 l)e rather narrowly scrutinized. Briefly to recapitulate, 

 the position is this : Lamarck in 1801 pul)lished a generic 

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

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

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

 In 1887 de Haan published, without description, two figures of 

 a species called on the plate " Pirn (.Paravmi/a) spinigera, n." 

 In 1889 he published a description of " Maja iMaja) spinigera, 

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

 wat/a)," and in 1849, under " Errata in tabulis specierum," he 

 writes "Tab. XXIV. fig. 4 : Maja iParamaya) sjrinigera. n.; 

 lege : M. iMaja) spinig." It should be noticed that neither in 

 1889 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 

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



26— I'Roc. Broi.. Soc. Wash., Vol.. XVIII, 190.5. (|.")7) 



