186 



[December^ 



friend desires to go in altering names that are already current. Viewed as canons 

 for future guidance, I agree in the main with Mr. Marshall's propositions ; but 

 framing rules for future nomenclators, and applying those rules retrospectiveJy to 

 established names, are very different matters. I desire to see scientific nomen- 

 clature scientifically constructed, and think that enough has already been said to 

 show that I am not bigottedly conservative of blunders, however venerable from 

 antiquity ; at the same time, considerations of convenience render me averse to 

 making altei-ations in some, at least, of the instances classified by Mr. Marshall. 

 Take his first class of " barbarism " — words without meaning, or formed from 

 Chinese, Sanskrit, Hebrew, and Arabic roots. These are said to be incurable. Is 

 it, then, proposed to root them out ? Though not enamoured of such names, I am 

 scarcely prepared for their wholesale excision from our Lists. True, it is difficult 

 to say where we must stop ; if we admit Chinese and Hebrew, why not Zulu ? or 

 even American ? I have some recollection of having seen printed descriptions of 

 beetles under the specific names of " Copper-head " and "Know-nothing!" Not 

 long ago I read in this Magazine, (iv, 246) a description of an Aulocera Werang ; 

 the context showed that Werang is the name of an Indian mountain-pass where 

 the butterfly had been captured. What would be thought of a Pa^piUo Haminersmith, 

 a Piens Mont-Blanc, or a PoVyommatus Jungfrau ? A few years ago certain French 

 authors gave such names as Cetonia Hope^ Lomcuptera Latreille, Gnathocera Macleay ; 

 but subsequent writers have properly converted these into Hopii, Latreillii, Macleaii 

 £N.B. Not Hopei, &c.], and this seems to point out the appropriate mode of treat- 

 ment for the Werangs, whose nakedness should at least be clothed in a garb of 

 mediaeval Latinity. 



(7.) Again, take Mr. Marshall's 6th class. *' Compounds of two nouns, in 

 which the subject is placed first, and the subordinate idea last, thereby destroying 

 the sense. Let any one try this inversion upon the English compounds London- 

 Bridge, watch-pocket, black-beetle, &c., and the result will be similar to that of 

 CorimelcBua for MelanocoriSy Derephysia for Physodem." Is the " destruction of the 

 sense" by inverting " river-horse " into ** horse-river" sufficient to induce us to 

 abandon hippopotamus ? Is rhinoceros to be turned into ceratorhimcs ? To substitute 

 Physodera for Derephysia is to make a new name, not to correct the spelling of the 

 old one. 



(8.) As to the 7th class, perhaps a little more explanation is requisite, lest it 

 should be supposed that Mr. Marshall had laid it down that every compound of two 

 Greek nouns is barbarous unless the two are connected by the letter O. It might 

 be well to point out the distinction between Acctropis^ Qonianotiis, &c , and such 

 existing Greek forms as Oidipous, Calliope, caUigraphoSy andrapodon, sciagraphoSj 

 acesphoros, aspidephoros, sagephoros, &c. 



(9.) Again, Mr. Marshall says JEliodes should be ^lioides; the termination 

 -odes means * full of similarity is expressed by -oides.** But surely the termination 

 'odes (with omega) not nnfrequently expresses similarity, being in fact nothing but 

 a contraction of 'Oeides (with omicron) . Thus isthmodcs, cimodes, cnclodes, sphecodeSf 

 chalcodes = isthmoeides, &c. ; and such instances, occurring in classical authors of 

 repute, if not worthy of imitation, seem to me sufficient warrant for allowing 

 JEUodes to stand. 



But I fear my discursive remarks are running to too great a length ; they 

 should have been shorter had I had more time. — J. W. Dunning, 24, Old Buildings, 

 Lincoln's Inn, 13</i Novetnber, 1868. 



