464 SOME QUESTIONS OF NOMENCLATURE. 



writers have repeated the denunciations uttered by Liunams and Artedi, 

 and refused to adopt such words. But hear what Plutarch says of 

 names of men derived from adjectives. 



In his life of Coriolanus, Plutarch, in recounting the events subse- 

 quent to the capture of Corioli, and the refusal of Marcius to accept 

 more than his share of the booty, comes to the proposition of Cominius. 1 



Let us, then, give him what is not in his power to decline; let us pass 

 a vote that he be called Coriolanus, if his gallant behavior at Oorioli 

 has not already bestowed that name upon him. Hence came his third 

 name of Coriolanus, by which it appears that Caius was the proper 

 name; that the second name, Marcius, was that of the family; and that 

 the third Roman appellative was a peculiar note of distinction, given 

 afterwards on account of some particular act of fortune, or signature, 

 or virtue of him that bore it. Thus, among the Greeks additional 

 names were given to some on account of their achievements, as Soter, 

 the preserver, and Callinicus, the victorious ; to others, for something 

 remarkable in their persons, as Physeon, the gore bellied, and Gripus, the 

 eagle-nosed; or for their good qualities, as Euergetes, the benefactor, and 

 Philadelphus, the hind brother; or their good fortune, as Eudcemon, the 

 prosperous, a name given to the second prince of the family of the Batti. 

 Several princes also have had satirical names bestowed upon them: 

 Antigonus (for instance) was called Doson, the man that will give 

 to-morrow ; and Ptolemy was styled Lamyras, the buffoon. But appella- 

 tions of this last sort were used with greater latitude among the 

 Romans. One of the Metelli was distinguished by the name of Diade- 

 matus, because he went a long time with a bandage, which covered an 

 ulcer he had in his forehead; and another they called Celer, because 

 with surprising celerity he entertained them with a funeral show of 

 gladiators a few days after his father's death. In our times, too, some 

 of the Romans receive their names from the circumstances of their birth ; 

 as that of Proculus, if born when their fathers are in a distant country; 

 and that of Posthumus, if born after their father's death; and when 

 twins come into the w T orld, and one of them dies at the birth, the sur- 

 vivor is called Vopiscus. Names are also appropriated on account of 

 bodily imperfections; for among them we find not only Sylla, the red, 

 and Niger, the black, but even Cacus, the blind, and Claudius, the lame ; 

 such persons, by this custom, being wisely taught not to consider 

 blindness or any other bodily misfortune as a reproach or disgrace, but 

 to answer to appellations of that kind as their proper names. 



What was good enough for the ancient Romans to bestow on the 

 most admired of their heroes is good enough for the nomenclature of 

 our genera of animals. We have also examples of names of adjective 

 form used substantively for animals among classic writers. Such, for 

 example, are the Aculeatus (pipe-fish) and Oculata (lamprey or nine- 

 eyes), mentioned by Pliny. 



Linnaeus himself, later, coined many names having an adjective 

 form; and three of his genera of plants of one small family, so desig- 

 nated, occur in this region — Saponaria, Arenaria, and Stellaria. Yet 

 even at the present day we have evidences of the lingering of the old 

 idea embodied in the canon in question. 



J Lauxrlioriiu'H translation of Plutarch's Lives is quoted from. 



