On Mr. Stutchbury's proposed Genus, Cypnecdssis. 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 z>, which displaces the Greek ia. The 

 French, indeed, substitute their e mute for the Greek 

 o; 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 o%eoyeveTY)g 

 and vfipoyevsTYip, or vSaroysv iTYjp, generators of acid and ot 

 water? Bat getie ox gion might stand for geneion, a beard or 

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

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

 §s>jt£, 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 xuwo;, new. The French write 

 cenobites for coenobites. So cene represents xouvog and koivoc, 

 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. Stutchbury s proposed 

 Genus, Ci/prcecdssis. By G. B. Sowerbv, 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 

 Cyprcca should not have been elided, and therefore if the 

 genus had been named Cyprtcacassis, such name ought not to 

 give offence to a purely classical ear. 



1 1 4 



