A snake new to the District of Columbia

VOL. _XVIII, PP. 73-78 FEBRUARY_21, 1905

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

GENERAL NOTES.

A SNAKE NEW TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

[By Permission^oftheSecretary oftheSmithsonianInstitution.]

In his"Listofthe Batrachians

and

Reptiles of the^Districtof

Columbia

and Vicinity"(Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington,

XV,

1902, pp.121-145) Prof.

W.

P.

Hay

^{enumerated 21} species of snakes as of

more

or less certain occurrenceintheDistrict. I

am now

ableto

add

a_species,viz: Cemophora coccinea(Blumenbach).

A

_specimen of the ^"Scarlet

Snake

^" was _{presented recently} to the National

Museum _by

Dr.I.

W.

Blackburn, of the

Government

_Hospital

forthe Insane,

who

_kindlywrites

me

_regardingitsorigin as follows^:

"The

specimen ^of Cumophora ^coccinea

came

into

my

possession alive,

aboutthe

summer

^{of1893. It}was _captured

by

an employee^ofSt.Eliza beth_Hospital,in the_vicinityof Anacostia."

Itis

now

No._35,308,U.S.National

Museum.

Compared

with the othersnakesinthe District ofColumbia,^asdefined in.Prof. Hay'sList,^it belongs ^to the

non-venomous

sectionwith smooth scales; anal_platenot divided; underside of

body

^isuniformlywhite, thus differing from the three _species of Lamprnpeltis withwhich it otherwise agrees most.

An

_important structural character is the prominent

and somewhat

conical rostral

which

even caused Schlegel ^to place ^{it in} the genus Hderodon.

This record extends the

known

range of the species considerably. ^It has been

known

fromLouisianatoFlorida

and

north to South _Carolina,

and

has been_regarded^as a southern snake characteristic of the Austro- riparian region. Early ⁱⁿ

May,

1891, a live specimen was ^sent to the

museum

from St. Margarets,

Anne

ArundelCo.,Maryland,

by

^Mr.A.A.

Stinchcomb,but unfortunately ^it escaped.

A

_drawing

and

colordescrip tion

made

fromthe_living animal

show

that the determination was cor rect. Theseare thetwo mostnorthernrecords. Asthecolorsof the_living snakeare ofinteresta description of the last-mentionedspecimen^follows:

Irischestnut; tongueanteriorlypale ^fleshcolordeepening

backward

to coralred; top ofheadin frontof thepostfrontalblack cross-band,as well as

11 PKOC.BIOL. Soc. WASH., VOL. XVIII, ^1905. (73)

74

General Notes.

dorsalblotches, dullvermilion; occipitalband, occupyingposteriorhalf of parietals,temporals,

and

anterior

row

ofdorsal_scales,orange(being ofa_light yellow ground-colorclouded with vermilion); rostral

and

loreal region

more

_pinkish; labials white; light dorsal interspaces primrose yellow, color deepest

on median

line

and

_{fadinggradually}intowhite on the first scale

row

; borders of vermilion patches jet black; lateral

dusky

spots dark

brown

(being black overlaidwith vermilion); whole underside white with mother-of-pearl reflections. Leonhard_Stejneger.

WHY NOT PAR A MAYA?

In a former

paper*

I referred tothe substitution

by

Stebbing^of

Mamaia

1904ffor

Maja Lamarck

1801,Jthelattergenus beingrightfullyabandoned.

Thereis,however,

an

earlier

name

than

Mamaia, Paramaya

de Haan,

which

hasclaims to validity.

Paramaya

^firstappeared ^{in 1837}on _plate

XXIV

of

De

^Haan's

Fauna

Japonica, Crustacea,^asa subgeneric designation, the typespeciesbeing^called"PISA(Paramaya) spinigera n." This _plate

and

plates

E and F

wereissuedwith Decas_{III,pages 65}to72,according^toBul letindes SciencesPhysiques^etNaturellesen_Neerlande,Leyde,1838,

where

the noticeappears^inthe

number

forAugust31,inalistofbooks published sinceJanuary1,1838. That the date given (1838)^isnot earlyenough ^is evidenced

by

^{thefact thatthe} "Ophidii" ^{of the}

Fauna

_Japonica

which was

_published^atthe

same

time,^isnoticed inGelehrte Anzeigen,Miinchen, July7, 1837.

The

textof ^"DecasTertia^" isalsodated1837atthe footof page^65.

The

_{type species} of

Paramaya

^is congeneric with the type species of

Mamaia,

^M.squinado (Herbst),^1788.

The name _Paramaya

remained undisputed ^until 1839,

when

de

Haan

published ^his

"

DecasQuarta," including pages ^{73 to 108.}

On

_page 93, appears the caption

"MAJA

_{(MAJA) SPINIGERA,} n._sp.," followed

by

^"T.

XXIV.

f. 4. 9 (Paramaya) ^{et T.} G.,"thus rejecting his

Paramaya

^for Maja. Again ⁱⁿthe last issue ofhiswork, ⁱⁿ 1849, de

Haan

_publishes under

"ERRATA

INTABULIS SPECIERUM," the following,^"Tab.

XXIV.

_fig.4:

Maja

(Paramaya)spinigera,n.; lege:

M.

_(Maja)spinig."

The

_rightofan authortothe_privilegeoferratapublishedsimultaneously withthe error ^is conceded_; buthe cannot cancel

names

at a later date, eveninacontinuation of the

same

work, withoutviolating

Canon XXXV

of theA.O.U. Code,

which

_says,

"An

author hasno_{right to} change^or reject

names

of his

own

proposing, except ⁱⁿ accordance with rules of nomenclature governing^allnaturalists,he having only^the

same

_{right as} othernaturalists over the

names

he has himselfproposed." Ptirmnnyn, therefore,

was

not obliterated

by

^de

Haan,

^but remained a

synonym

^of

Maja

^untilto-day,

when

^it

must

needstake the place of the oldername.

Mary

^J.Ralhbun.

*Proc.Biol. Soc.Washington,XVII,p. 171, 1904.

fSpoliaZeylanica,II,pt.V,p.2,April,^1904.

tSyst.Anim.sans_{Vert.,154, 1801.}