184 



[ Dt'cember, 



It cannot be said that the Greek language does not recognize compound nouns 

 substantive. And if it be wislied to form in Greek the compound substantive 

 corresponding to the English spine-hody, what would it be, if not Acantlwsoma ? 



Is there any reason why a compound noun substantive may not be taken for 

 the name of a genus, when a simple noun substantive may ? If Harma will do, 

 why not Chalccmna ? If Phasma, why not Neophasma ? 



The word Trigonaspis may be either a substantive (a triangular shield), or it 

 may be an adjective denoting the possession of a triangular shield. The mere 

 compounding of trigones with aspis does not make the compound trigonaspis an 

 adjective any more than compounding " long " and " bow " makes *' longbow " an 

 adjective. Trigonaspis is as good a substantive as Aspis, Micromix as good as Omix. 



If Micromix had been applied to a genus of birds, Mr. Marshall's Dipsocoris 

 argument would have run thus : — " Micrornix = little-hird, a compound noun 

 substantive, which, therefore, must have some gender or other ; it takes its gender 

 from the subject (bird) j the word involves both subject and predicate ; the subject 

 is a bird, whereof it is predicated that it is little." If, instead of a genus of birds, 

 the name were given to a genus of moths — as, in fact, the name Ornix has been — 

 then, as a moth is not a bii-d, the argument would be that " in Micrornix the subject 

 is not contained, but understood ; of this subject it is predicated that it is like a 

 little bird ; bird is not the subject, but part of the predicate." The result is, that 

 as the name of a bird Micromix is a substantive, vnth a gender of its own — as the 

 name of a moth, Micrornix is an adjective, depending for its gender on some 

 imaginary substantive understood ! 



Suppose that instead of compounding acantha and soma, the author had formed 

 his name from acantha and thorax. Adopting the same mode of composition as in 

 Acanthosoma, we obtain Acanthothorax. By a similar process we have Uropteryx. 



The three genders of the adjectives Acanthothorax and Uropteryx would be 

 identical. Whatever, then, " the substantive understood, or supposed to be under- 

 stood," might be, whether masculine, feminine, or neuter, the name of the genus 

 would still remain Acanthothorax or Uropteryx. The founder of Acanthothorax 

 might understand a feminine substantive, and make the name feminine ; the 

 founder of Uropteryx might have understood a masculine substantive, and matle the 

 name masculine. Would Mr. Marshall allow Acanthothorax spinosa or Uropteryx 

 samhucarius to stand ? If not, why not ? If he would, he must equally allow 

 Spilothorax punctaturti and Micropteryx pv/rpurellum. We should then have three 

 genera, say, Ceratothorax masculine, AcantliotJwrax feminine, and Spilothorax neuter ; 

 and in like manner with the compounds o£ pteryx. Nay, further, wo might have all 

 three genders in the same genus. A., an author of a masculine turn of mind, might 

 call his species Acanthothorax niger ; B., more pai-tial to the feminine gender, 

 might insist upon naming another species Acanthothorax alba ; whilst C., an epicene, 

 might have a preference for Acanthothorax rufum. And if this noun-adjective 

 principle of the gender being '* dependent on the termination and nothing more" be 

 sustainable, no one of the trio can say that either of the other two is wrong. 



Is not AcanthotJiorax a noun substantive of masculine gender, and masculine 

 because thorax is masculine ? Uropteryx & noun substantive of feminine gender, 

 and feminine because pteryx is feminine? Acanthosoma a noun substantive of 

 neuter gender, and ncntor bncnn=:o a^vfn is neuter ? 



