On Mr.Stutchburys proposed Genus, Cyprcecassis, 431 



uniform orthography and pronunciation of words derived from 

 the Greek and Latin languages, and proposed for naturalisa- 

 tion into our own. We sometimes borrow directly from the 

 ancient languages ; sometimes through a French medium ; 

 sometimes adopt anomalous transmutations of words. The 

 word chronology is from the Greek ; but the final y is a sub- 

 stitute for the French ie, which displaces the Greek ta. The 

 French, indeed, substitute their e mute for the Greek 

 05 and the Latin us and ius : as in Chrysostome which we 

 write Chrysostom ; and Tite Live, which we change to Livy. 

 What shall we say of oxigene and hidrogene ? are they not 

 abbreviations of oxygenetes and hydrogenetes, or ogsoyei/sT>jg 

 and utipoyeveTYip, or ySaroyevsr^p, generators of acid and of 

 water ? But gene or gion might stand for geneion, a beard or 

 chin ; or for yevra, viscera. In the word deut-oxid, deut stands 

 for deuteros ; but might as well stand for deutatos the last, or for 

 Ssure, come hither. Students of geology are puzzled with the 

 new words Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene. Why should 

 not Mio and Plio be spelled Meio and Pleio, as in Greek, and 

 cene be spelled caene, from xuivo$, new. The French write 

 cenobites for coenobites. So cene represents x<xivo$ and xoivoc, 

 the new and the common. To avoid such confusion it seems 

 desirable to adopt this rule, viz., — 



That words borrowed from the Greek and Latin languages 

 should retain their original forms ; or be compounded in strict 

 analogy with precedents found in those languages. 



[Although, in the present condition of science, no immediate 

 benefit may result from the publication of articles discussing 

 the principles which ought to regulate nomenclature, yet if 

 ever a total revision be undertaken by general consent, some 

 valuable hints may be gathered from the perusal of the pre- 

 ceding, and other papers of a similar character. — Ed.~\ 



Art. V. Additional Remarks on Mr, Stutchburys proposed 

 Genus, Cyprcecdssis. By G. B. Sowerby, Esq., F.L.S. 



In my observations on Mr. Samuel Stutchbury's proposed 

 new genus Cypraecassis, published by you lately, I purposely 

 avoided saying any thing about the construction of the name, 

 although I considered it faulty. I thought it advisable to ask 

 the opinion of a classical friend. He tells me that Cyprae- 

 cassis is a vicious formation, and adds that the terminal a of 

 Cyprcea should not have been elided, and therefore if the 

 genus had been named Cyprccacassis, such name ought not to 

 give offence to a purely classical ear. 



11 4 



