276 [April, 
the generic name ; Taxus baccata is the scientific name of ‘the common yew,” 
and Taxus corresponds to “yew,” as baccata corresponds to “common.” I do 
not recall the name of a second species of Taxus; let us take Juniperus tnstead. 
The analogy is not between Lycena Minimus and “ Juniper bush”? or “ Bush 
juniper,” but between 
The common JUNIPER, JUNIPERUS communis, and Lycm/NA mawima. 
The dwarf JuNiPER, JUNIPERUS nana, and Lyca@Nna minima. 
If communis and nana, the epithets by which in the universal botanical 
vocabulary we distinguish the two species of Juniperus, are nouns substantive, 
I suppose that “common” and “ dwarf,’ by which in the local vocabulary we 
distinguish the same two species, have as good a right to claim substantive rank. 
But I submit that Minima is just as much (and no more) the name of the particular 
kind of Lycena as “ common” is the name of the particular kind of Juniper, ‘.e., 
it is part, and only part, of the object; and that Minima is just as much (and no 
more) a noun as “common” is a noun, 7.e., it is a noun adjective. 
Again, there is no analogy between ‘‘ Lycena, Minimus” and “ Staphylinides 
Staphylinus.” The former is the name of an insect, the latter is not. Staphylinide 
is a noun of multitude, a collective nonn, the name of a group of which Staphylinus 
is a member; and just as a man’s “chattels” include alike his horses and his 
household furniture, so the group Staphylinide may include things of any gender. 
The single word Staphylinide is the name of one thing, and the single word 
Staphylinus is the name of another thing; but ‘‘ Staphylinide Staphylinus” is 
notvand cannot be the name of anything. On the other hand, the single word 
Minima is not the name of anything, but Lycena Minima is. 
I confess that Dr. Sharp’s last paragraph puzzles me. I cannot follow him 
into the region of “universal grammar.” JI am not acquainted with it; and I 
will only suggest that it is better to ‘handle Latin and Greek words according to 
he rules” of Latin and Greek grammar. This may be a ‘curious classical 
prejudice ;” if it be, though I can lay no claim to classical scholarship, I plead 
guilty of the curious prejudice.—J. W. Dunnine, 24, Old Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn: 
March, 1872. 
Reviews. 
FAUNA PERTHENSIS; Part i, Lepidoptera; by Dr. F. Bucuanan Wuire. 1871. 
Published by the Perthshire Society of Natural History. 
Hither the possession of the far-famed Rannoch district, or of an indefatigable 
President of their local Natural History Society, or of both combined, has called 
forth an amount of energy among the Perthshire Naturalists that those of some 
other counties would do well to copy. Not the least significant sign of their activity 
is the contemplated publication of a ‘ Fauna’ of the county, of which the first 
instalment is now before us. The list furnishes much valuable information to the 
general entomologist, both British and foreign, more especially in the judiciously 
interspersed remarks on the variations to which many species are subject in the 
district, a fact to be respected, when we read that the elevation of the land ranges 
