954 |March, 
Amongst the siguatures appended to these Rules and Recommendations, the 
last, but not the least honoured, is “J. O. WEstwoop.” 
Whilst on the subject of nonsense-names, may I enquire what specific malady 
has attacked our nomenclators? In glancing cursorily for a few moments over 
the aforesaid Zool. Record, I have fallen upon a Pleocoma staff, a Hesperia poweshetk, 
and a Noctua hatney! When Amphionycha Knownothing was wisely abandoned by 
its author, I did hope that the day had gone by when a Pleocoma staff would have 
been possible.—J. W. Dunnina, 24, Old Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn, January, 1872. 
Upon the relations between generic and specific names.—In Mr. Dunning’s re- 
marks on the recently published Catalogue of British Aculeate Hymenoptera there 
is a point incidentally alluded to, on which I would like to say a word or two. It is, 
the necessary agreement in gender of specific and generic name when applied to 
the same object. Of course, there can be no question but that, when a naturalist 
names a species for the first time, he should make the specific name accord in 
gender with the generic name. But the question whether, when a masculine 
specific name is changed from a masculine-named to a femirine-named genus, it 
should be accordingly altered to suit the generic name, is quite a different thing. 
After a careful consideration of this point, I have no hesitation in giving my 
support to Staudinger’s conclusion, viz., that the specific name should not be so 
changed in gender. I will briefly give my reasons for this. 
The name of the species is the real basis of zoological nomenclature, and every 
effort should be made to get naturalists clearly to understand this. The natural 
course of nomenclature is this—a name is given to a species, and this name is, 
from the fact of its being applied to an object, a noun: it matters not that a word 
which is ordinarily an adjective (such as niger) be adopted for the purpose, the 
main point to be borne in mind is that, when used as a specific name, it indicates 
a certain definite object, and, from that very fact, is, in accordance with the rules 
of grammar, a noun. 
The generic noun is a mere secondary affair,—a concession to human weak- 
ness; and it is a mistake to suppose that the fundamentally more important 
specific noun should be changeable to suit the generic noun,— this latter being really 
much more adjectival than the specific noun. 
Mr. Dunning thinks Lycena Minimus abhorrent; but I think it can be only 
because of some curious classical prejudices that he so considers it. Science- 
nomenclature should be of no particular language, its object being to supply a 
universal language, and it is to be of assistance for this purpose that we make use of 
Latin and Greek words (as being more generally known than others) ; but we must 
handle them according to the rules of universal grammar. Now, the two words 
“Lycena Minimus”’ are analogous to the two words “ Yew tree” (or rather “ tree 
yew”) in ordinary language. ‘“‘ Yew” and “tree” may be of different genders, 
and yet the combination be perfectly correct; so I maintain that Lycena and 
Minimus in combination are perfectly correct. The comparison of Lycena Minimus 
to “Pauline Frederic.” is quite deceptive ; one of the chief objects of the use of 
the word “Pauline,” as applied to an individual, is to indicate its sex; and it is, 
therefore, of course riliculous to conjoin with it another name contradicting it on 
that point. There is no meaning in “no-yes,” unless as a fresh word signifying 
something different to either yes or no; and similarly objection is to be taken to 
