185 



Mr. Marshall is careful to point out (p. 282) that Harma, as a generic name, is 

 ueutcr; the only reason being that the Greek noun substantive /larma is neuter.* 

 If any one were to tiike Soma for the name of a genus, this, by parity of reasoning, 

 would be neuter. If Soma is properly made neuter, why is Acanthosoyna to be 

 made feminine ? Is not Chalcarma of the same gender as Harma ? 



To Mr. Marshall's assertion that the compound depends for gender on its own 

 termination and nothing more, the Editors of the Magazine add the further argu- 

 ment that the word is " supposed to be Latin, whatever its derivation." Admitted 

 — but what then ? The name Harma is supposed to be Latin. Do the Editors wish 

 to argue that Harma should be feminine? If so, I leave them for the present 

 to settle their little difference vrith Mr. Marshall. In fact, the suggestion of 

 the Editors leaves the question precisely where it was j for if Acanthosoyna 

 be a substantive, the termination does not decide its gender j I need scarcely 

 remind the Editors that there are plenty of Latin substantives ending in -a 

 which are masculine, and plenty which are neuter. Acantlvosoma as a Greek 

 noun substantive would undoubtedly be neuter ; and if that word had been adopted 

 in Latin, the neuter gender would have been retained. Just as we have Mni^ma 

 (n.), gen. (snigmatis ; i:>ha$ma (n.), -atis ; psalma (n.), -atis ; so we should have 

 Acanthosoma (n.),gen. Acanthosomatis. 



On the adjectival hypothesis, we are bound to make the genitive case Acantho- 

 somce ; but I presume Mr. Marshall would say Harma, gen. Harmatis, I see that 

 at p. 274 of the Magazine he sends glechomce of Linne to the right about, and 

 properly writes Aulax glechomatis. If, then, there were an Acanthosoma which 

 affected the plant Glechoma, Mr. Marshall must make the genitive case of its name 

 to be AcantliosomcB Glechomatis. 



I have purposely omitted any discussion of the " carriage with the lady inside." 

 But so far from seeing anything " ludicrous," " illogical," or indicative of " misun- 

 derstanding the use of words" in making this name neuter, I must confess that 

 Acanthosoma, as a Latinized word of Greek origin, a noun substantive of the third 

 declension and of neuter gender, a term absolute, not depending on any other word 

 understood, seems to me admissible ; and if the matter were res integra, and we 

 were now beginning our nomenclature, I should not hesitate (as at present advised) to 

 adopt the neuter substantive in preference to the feminine adjective ; though I beg 

 to reserve to myself the fullest right to go over to the feminine camp when I have 

 heard Mr. Marshall in reply. 



My present impression is that Acanthosoma, as the name of a genus of bugs, 

 may be deemed to be either an adjective or a substantive, may be made either 

 feminine or neuter — that either of the opposing views is rational, neither of them 

 ludicrous. It may be that in the existing state of nomenclature, expediency and 

 the balance of convenience are in favour of the retention of Acanthosoma, fern, 

 (gen. case, Acanthosomce, Fam. Acanthosomida;), and the rejection of Acanthosoma, 

 neut. (gen. case, Acanthosomatis, Fam. Acanthosomatidce) j at all events, it is desirable 

 that there should be uniformity in the practice. 



(6.) To pass now to Mr. Marshall's "further words" (vol. iv, p. 280), I find 

 some difficulty in discovering, and I hope we shall be further informed, how far my 



* For the purpose of this argument I adopt Mr. Marshall's suggestion that the genus Arma of Hahn 

 ought to be written Harma. I do not find that Hahn himself professes to derive the name fromharma, 

 nor do I know on what ground Mr. Marshall adopts this derivation. It is not justifiable to impute 

 error on conjecture, if any explanation not inrolving error is forthcoming. If Jrma can be explained, 

 we ought not to resort to flarwia ; and at least two derivations may be suggested for Arma without 

 the H. 



