1868.] 



183 



So far as I am aware, the practice of making " genera which end in -toma, 

 •oma, or -soma, neuter " has been applied only in cases where the name of the 

 genus is a compound of two Greek words of which the latter is a noun substantive 

 of neuter gender ; as Ortho-stoma, Di/plo-doma, Acantho-soma. This is the case 

 which I propose now to consider, leaving those (if any) who hold the " confused 

 notion " above mentioned to defend their own " vicious practice " and " illogical 

 vagary." 



What then is, or ought to be, the gender of Acantlwsoma ? 



The proposition that " the gender of the different nouns forming a compound 

 can have no influence on the gender of the compound when formed ; the latter 

 depends for gender on its own termination, and nothing more," is stated too 

 broadly, as shown by Mr. Marshall himself, in the note at p. 281, where he says 

 I>iFSOCORis=thirst-bug ; a compound noun substantive, which, therefore, must 

 have some gender or other ; it takes its gender from the subject (bug) .... the 

 word involves both subject and predicate ; the subject is a hug, whereof it is predi- 

 cated that he is thirsty." It is clear, then, that where the subject is expressed, 

 the gender of that subject not only has influence on, but determines, the gender of 

 the compound. 



But Mr. Marshall distinguishes Acanthosoma from Dipsocoris on the ground 

 that " in Acanthosoma the subject is not contained, but understood. Acanthosoma= 

 spiny -bodied ; a compound noun adjective, agreeing with some substantive under- 

 stood, or supposed to be understood, and in this instance, from the termination, 

 supposed to be feminine. Of this subject it is predicated that it has a spiny body. 

 Body is not the subject, but part of the predicate." 



In other words — a name which denotes what a thing is, is a noun substantive j 

 a name which denotes what a thing has^ some property or quality which it possesses, 

 is a noun adjective. 



But is this necessarily and universally so ? A " blackbird "is so called because 

 it is a black bird ; a " redbreast " is so called because it has a red breast ; a " wag- 

 tail" because it has a tail and wags it. Are not "redbreast" and "wagtail" as 

 much nouns substantive as "blackbird?" May not Acanthosoma be a substantive, 

 just as much as Dipsocoris ? 



The real question is this — Is Acanthosoma an adjective or a substantive ? 



That it may be an adjective I do not deny. Such forms as disomos and me- 

 galosomos (for disomatos and megalosomatos) occur in some late Greek writers, and 

 there is good authority for distomos and megalostomos. By analogy we have acan- 

 thosomos, and, Latinizing this, we obtain acanthosomus, -a, -um, as an adjective to 

 express " spine-bodied." [Spine-bodied, not spiny-bodied ; spinicorpus, not spinosi- 

 corpus. I apprehend that, properly, Acanthosomus means " having a body like a 

 spine," or " spine-shaped" — not " spiny," or " covered with spines."] 



But conceding that Acantlwsoma may be an adjective, does it follow that it 

 must be ? 



Why may I not say " AcANTHosoMA=spi'ne-bo(i?/, a compound noun substantive, 

 which, therefore, must have some gender or other" of its own ? 



When, as in the days of Moses Harris, Papilio Machaon and Anthocharis Carda- 

 mines were called respectively " the swallow-tailed " and " the orange-tipped," 

 their vernacular names were " compound nouns adjective, agreeing with some sub- 

 stantive understood." But surely " swallow-tail " and " orange-tip," " blue-bottle," 

 *' cow-lady," and " lady-bird," are themselves nouns substantive. 



