546 
My reason for preferring archetypus in my for- 
mer letter, was because the noun in Greek is ruzoc¢ 
(typus), not ru7ov (typum). It is true that Aristotle 
himself uses adjectively apyeruov (archetypum); but 
I think he uses it in the abstract sense, to apyxe- 
cuvov, a thing that represents the original form, 
meaning something rather conceived than real. 
But you apply it to a thing at hand, the original 
itself present. I did not recollect that you used 
archetypum in the nominative case in Flora Bri- 
tannica. If you did use it in the accusative, the 
argument will not apply. I still think archetypus 
better than archetypum, for ‘specimen,’ especially 
where specimen is contrasted with icon, figura ; for 
I think apyeruvoc means forma originals presens. 
I do not think your generic name notion right. 
When a vox hiulca occurred, I observe the Greeks 
often inserted a consonant to please the ear, e- 
phonie causd: but in this word they could not, for 
by inserting the » (7), they introduced a new word of 
different meaning. notion, written in Greek will 
stand either avoriov or avwriov. The first word signi- 
fying non humidus, without moisture—if any thing ; 
the second, zon dorsalis, without a back. Now it 
happens that Athenzus has an expression, cepayiov 
awrov, vas non aures habens, in which he makes 
awroc, Which is naturally a noun, declined (as I ob- 
served on apyerumoc) like an adjective. This was 
no uncommon thing with the Greeks themselves, 
when they wanted to express a new idea. We 
have the same in our own language. We say s¢ar- 
light, making star an adjective for starry, &c. Now 
