292 (May, 
The main argument on the former occasion was, that the specific name is the 
real basis of zoological nomenclature, and that the generic name was a secondary 
affair, much more adjectival than the specific name. To this argument I addressed 
myself, and endeavoured to shew that the generic name is the primary, and the 
specific the secondary name. 
I accept Dr. Sharp’s statement of the question under discussion—Are all 
specific names nouns, or are they all adjectives ? 
He thinks it beyond doubt that every specific name is anoun. And thereason 
he gives for his belief is, that the specific name is the name of an object. 
My answer was, and is, that the specific name is not the name of any object. 
The generic name is the name of the object, and is a noun substantive—as 
Juniperus, the juniper. But there are several junipers, and to distinguish between 
them, we must add something to the noun substantive; we put to the noun 
Juniperus the words communis and nana, and these adjectives (or words ‘ put to’) 
are the specific names. 
I beg to repeat my former enquiry. In the names of “the common juniper ” 
and “the dwarf juniper,’ are common and dwarf nouns substantive or nouns ad- 
jective ? If adjectives, are not communis and nana adjectives likewise P 
If I may be allowed to cite my own words “ Hach genus has its name, which is 
a noun substantive; and the species is marked by the addition of some epithet to 
the name of the genus—by the addition of another word, which may be, but is not 
necessarily, a noun substantive; which in fact is more frequently an adjective ; and 
which, when a substantive, is epithetic, or used adjectivally,” or, I might have added, 
“ fiourativeiy.” 
Thus, when we give the specific name taurus to an Onthophagus, we do not 
mean that the beetle is a bull, but only that it possesses some quality which induces 
us to liken it to a bull, or to speak of it figuratively as a bull. And when we name 
a butterfly Polyommatus Adonis, we (by a well-known figure of speech) personify 
the beauty of the insect, and call it by the proper name of one who was remarkable 
for the possession of that same quality of beauty. And it is manifest that specific 
names which are the genitive or possessive case of a noun substantive, as Anglie or 
Spinole, are adjectival. 
Taking then the term “ adjective’ as including words which in form are nouns, 
either in the nominative or genitive case, but which, like the instances mentioned, 
are used adjectivally, I think it beyond doubt that every specific name is an 
adjective. 
As Wocke has it, ‘‘The name of the genus is the substantive, the name of the 
Species is always an adjective, even though it express the name of a person or a 
place.” 
If every specific name were a substantive, then, since any substantive may (so 
far as language is concerned) be adopted for the name of a genus, it would follow 
that every specific name might be taken for the name of a genus. But would any 
one venture to propose Angliw or Spinole as the name of a new genus? And if 
not, why not? 
Dr. Sharp appeals to the practice of using the specific without the generic name 
as an arcument in favour of his contention. Holding the view I have indicated of 
the practice, he can scarcely expect this appeal to convince me, whatever effect it 
may have upon others. No doubt, when a man says he has caught “ littoralis,” 
