SOME QUESTIONS OF NOMENCLATURE. 473 



Art- {Api-) occurs often in classical words, as apidaxPM g ( vev Y tear- 

 ful), apidrjlos (very plain), and api7tpE7trjS (very showy). 



Da- (Aa-) is illustrated by such names as SdffuiOb (daskios, shaded) 

 and dacpoivos (daphoinos, deep red) ; convert them, if you will, into 

 Dascius and Daplioenus. Numerous names may be made on the model, 

 although in classical Greek there are few. 



Pri- (Epi-) is used in the same way as Art-, and is familiar in ancient 

 Greek as a particle of such words as epiavyr/S (very brilliant) and 

 ipiavxi]y (with a high arched neck). The common large seal of north- 

 ern Europe (Frignathus barbatus) has received its generic name, based 

 on the same model, on account of the depth of the jaws. Very few 

 naturalists, however, have availed themselves of this particle for name- 

 making, most of the words in the zoological nomenclature commencing 

 with Pri- having other origins. 



Za- (Za-) is met with in such words as Zm'js (strong blowing), Zadeptfi 

 (very hot), ZanaWif (very beautiful), CanXovro* (very rich), ^anor-qz 

 (a hard drinker). The particle has been utilized in the composition of 

 the generic name (Zalophus) of the common sea lion r distinguished by 

 its high sagittal crest (Zd- and Xotpos. crest), familiar to menagerie vis- 

 itors and the residents and travelers in San Francisco. Professor 

 Cope has also made use of it for several of his names. 



We have been told by ancient writers that Cicero was a name derived 

 from cicer, a vetch. According to Pliny, the name (like Pabius and 

 Lentulus) was obtained on account of ancestral skill in cultivation of 

 the plant j but, according to Plutarch, the original of the name was so 

 called because he had a vetch-like wen on his nose. 1 Which one (if 

 either) was the fact is of no material consequence. The etymological 

 propriety of both is sanctioned by the suppositions of classical writers. 

 There can, then, be no valid objection to other names formed on the 

 model. 



There is one rule which has been put in such a form (and without 

 proper exceptions) that a number of names, improper according to 

 classical standards, have been introduced. The rule is that the aspi- 

 rate of Greek should be rendered by h. While this is true for the com- 

 mencement of a name, it is not for the body, where it generally is 

 suppressed, being sonant only after p, t, or l\ The Greeks, accordingly, 

 wrote Philippos (3>i\i7t7ros) and PpJiippus ('Fcpmiroz). In accordance 

 with such models Mesohippus and Orohippus should have been called 

 Mesippus and Orippus. Protohippus should have been Prothippus. 

 Fpihippus might by some be considered to be preoccupied by PpJiippus, 

 a genus of fishes. But, in my opinion, all the names should be retained 

 as they are (if there is no other objection), on the assumption that 



1 Those familiar with the ' Spectator 7 may recall Addison's allusion to this (No. 59), 

 See also Middleton's Life of Cicero. 



