APPENDICES. 329 
spirit in which it is made—that of a sincere wish to contribute 
towards the settlement of one or two trifles which are occa- 
sions of confusion to many who do not express their doubts 
in print. Particularly, what is the proper English plural 
of the word “proboscis”? Of course, it is a Greek word, 
and if we follow the original, as Mr. Cheshire, fortified by 
Webster, does, we shall write “proboscides.” No one can 
say that this is wrong, and yet does it not sound to nearly 
every one as wrnatural? The word has acquired a recognised 
English footing, and our regular plural for words ending in 
zs is formed by changing that syllable into es—perhaps from 
following the Latin, which does so with Greek words whose 
original plural ends in e’s. At all events, it is certain that 
foreign words do creep into English use, in the case of which 
any person adhering to the foreign plural would be set down 
as a pedant forthwith (‘‘genius,” “terminus,” and “aquarium” 
for instance). It is very easy in scores of instances to show the 
incorrectness of usage ; yet after all it is usage that makes the 
language, and when it once is settled we cannot override it ; 
thus we would even adhere to the English plural “ chrysalises,” 
irregular as it is, in preference to the technical “ chrysalides.” 
Even if the similar plural of “ proboscis” could be considered 
just tolerable in the case of insects, yet could we any of us ever 
bear to say “The elephants raised their proboscides”? We 
have referred the matter to Dr. William Smith, the philologist, 
and he, without offering a dogmatic opinion, replies that his 
own preference would be to write “probosces.” 
We have been asked whether the word “apiarian” can. be 
properly used as a noun. Custom has perhaps by this time 
sanctioned it, but “apiculturist” is much the safer form. 
The proper name “ Réaumur,” if left without the accent, as 
nearly all apiarian authors persist in writing it, becomes cut 
down from its correct three syllables to two. We have been 
at pains to investigate the matter by means of French bio- 
graphical works at the British Museum, and as the result, 
we have not a shadow of a doubt that the omission of the 
aecent in English use had its rise in the first place in an 
ordinary piece of carelessness. 
