1869. J 



209 



matical or logical. They belonged originally to the language of the vulgar, and of 

 children, and are mere familiar nicknames. Their incorrectness consists in their 

 not containing the real subject, — whether bird, bug, or man. Instead of this they 

 put forward (graphically and poetically) a new subject — hreast, tail, body, heard, 

 etc., — from which our extensive knowledge and reading enable us to infer the real 

 subject of discourse with much readiness. Thus by Redbreast and Wagtail we 

 understand certain birds ; by Longshanks and Lackland,, two EngUsh kings ; and 

 by Bluebeard, a celebrated Eastern potentate. These names are only tolerable in 

 English because the language has no genders. We get into no difficulty by speaking 

 of the yellow Wagtail : the gender of yellow is undetermined, and the difficulty ia 

 concealed. So also Bluebeard may be spoken of as a man, — no matter what gen- 

 der his beard may have. But this slovenly idiom is impossible in languages with 

 three genders, Hke Greek and Latin. The difficulty which is concealed in English 

 becomes in them fearfully apparent. We might nickname an individual Brazenbeard ^ 

 having no fear of genders before our eyes. But in Latin Ahenobarba,-CB, f., will 

 not do for a man's name. His name, like himself, must be masculine, and accor- 

 dingly we have the adj. Alienobarbus, taking its gender from the real subject, from 

 the man, and not from his beard. Similarly all other words, containing only some 

 attribute of the subject, must in Greek and Latin be adjectives, agreeing in gender 

 with their jreal subject, and with nothing else. And this actually amounts to 

 no more than that golden rule of our youth, than an adj. agrees with its subst., &c. 

 If this rule is to be evaded in zoological names, as it is in English, the whole 

 system of genders becomes absurd, and there is no end to the incongruities which 

 will occur. Let us take a few published names of genera, such as Lonchostemus, 

 Dasysterna, Dactylo sternum ; Barynotus, Aloconota, Cyclonotum ; Stylosomus, 

 ^gosoma j Amblystomus, Sericostoma ; Chasmatopterus, Dictyoptera, Liojpterum. 

 Those in italics are, according to Mr. Dunning, substantives neuter, because Ster- 

 non, Noton, Soma, Stoma, and Pteron, are neuter. What shall we say then for the 

 others ? They must be equally neuter, notwithstanding their terminations, or 

 what becomes of the rule of the " German illuminato ? " — Or if some of the above 

 words are substantives and some not, wdll Mr. Dunning kindly point out which is 

 which, and why ? That he will see the impracticability of this, I am well assured, 

 and I have good hopes that he will avail himself of his reserved right to a change 

 of opinion, after hearing the other side, and will henceforth agree with me that 

 such words must be treated as adjectives. 



To conclude, let me for a moment revert to the most presumptuous of the 

 claimants of the rank of noun substantive, viz., Acanthosoma. 



The subject of this woi-d is a certain group of bugs. This subject is not con- 

 tained in the word Acanthosoma, but is understood. Every noun that does not 

 contain the subject, must contain the predicate, or it has no meaning at all. And 

 if it contains only the predicate, it is what grammarians call an adjective. There- 

 fore Acanthosoyna is an adjective. Q. E. D. 



I have something to say to other interesting matters mentioned by Mr. Dunning, 

 but for want of time and space I must leave them for the present. — T. A. Marshall, 

 College, Milford Haven, December, 1868. 



[Mr. Marshall's remarks upon the other points raised in Mr. Dunning's paper 

 will appear in our next No. — Eds.] 



The late John Curtis' s Entomological Drawings. — The original coloured drawings 

 of the plants and insects delineated by Mr. Curtis in the " British Entomology " 

 have been, since his decease, in the possession of his widow, who is now desii'ons 



