39 
Fam. Ocypodidae. 
1900. Ocypodinae, Alcock, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, Vol. 
CXUX,, Pt. 2, p.343. 
Alcock divides the fam. Ocypodidae, in the larger sense, into 
three sub-families, Ocypodinae, Scopimerinae, and Macroph- 
thalminae. 
Gen. Ueca, Leach. 
1x4. Uca, Leach; Edinb. Eneyels, Vol. 7;.p. 430. 
1615. Uca, Leach, Trans.-Emne Soc’, London; Vol. XI... pp. 
399; 323. 
1816. Uca, Leach, Encycl. Brit., Ed. 5, Suppl., Art. Annulosa, 
ps 413: 
1817. Gelasimus, Latreille, Nouveau Dict. Hist. Nat., Vol. XII., 
p. 517. (Also Gelasima.) 
1820. Gelasimus, Latreille, Dict. Sci. Nat., Vol. XVIII, p. 286. 
(Gelasima, p. 287.) 
1825. Gelasimus, Desmarest, Consid. gén. Crust., p. 122. 
1893. Gelasimus, Stebbing, History of Crustacea, Internat. 
Sci-’ Ser.” Vole XOVe, ps Sc: 
1897. Uca, M. J. Rathbun, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, Vol. 
Re Pt 54e 
1897. Uca, Ortmann, Zool. Jahrb., Vol. X., pp. 335, 346. 
1900. Gelastmus, Alcock, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, Vol. 
LXEXCSPe. 29 paa30- 
However much one may regret the loss of the long-used name 
Gelasimus, it seems impossible to retain it. Beyond dispute 
the Uca of Leach is the earlier. Desmarest, on whom Alcock 
appears to rely for upholding Gelasimus, admits that Latreille’s 
definition of that genus exactly applies to the crustaceans 
Leach intended to place in his Uca. Leach referred to it 
Cancer uka, Shaw (Naturalist’s Miscellany, 1802), and as this is 
distinct from Cancer Uca, Linn. (see Rathbun, loc. cit.), he was 
justified in renaming the species. He called it Uca una. Upon 
this evidence Desmarest declares that Leach erroneously re- 
ferred to his genus the “ uca-una de Pison et de Marcgrave,” 
two authors of the pre-Linnean period to whom Leach makes 
no allusion whatever. Since the species which he actually 
referred to his genus really belonged to it, the validity of the 
genus would not have been destroyed, even if he had given an 
additional reference that was inappropriate. But he never did 
give the imaginary references which disquieted Desmarest, 
