232 



[February, 



by all means make it agreo with its enbstantivo. But the question is this, " Is 

 Acanthosoma an adjective, or a substantive ?" Is sotna the subject, or only part of 

 the predicate ? 



But though the name of an individual of the male sex must necessarily be 

 masculine, what ore wo to do when we have to coin a name — not for a single 

 individual of one sex — but for a collection of individuals, containing males and 

 females, if not neuters also ? The name of a group of bugs, unless it contain the 

 real subject, hug, must, according to Mr. Marshall, be an adjective, agreeing in 

 gender with that real subject. But there are real bugs male, and real bugs female. 

 Are we to call the male bug Acanthosomus verrucosus, and the female Acanthosoma 

 verrucosa ? Mr. Marshall can scarcely mean this. We must then have some name 

 for the insect which is independent of the sex or gender of the individual. Are we 

 to understand Coris or Cimcx, according as the name we give to the genus is 

 derived from the Greek or the Latin ? in other words, are we bound to make the 

 name of every genus of bugs of the masculine gender ? This is a new principle of 

 nomenclature, quite at variance with the practice hitherto. And if not Coris or 

 Cimex, what is the imaginary substantive, meaning hug, that is " understood, or 

 supposed to be understood ?" The Greek Coris, which Mr. Marshall tells us is 

 masculine,* and the Latin Cimex, which also is usually masculine, though some- 

 times made feminine, were used collectively to include all bugs, females as well as 

 males. We are guilty of no greater violence when we call a genus of bugs, including 

 both sexes, by a masculine name, or when we call another genus by a feminine 

 name. 



Are we to abandon the practice of taking for names of genera the names of 

 persons and places, which I have always imagined to be nouns substantive ? Or do 

 Cercyon,\ Lucanus, RIkbIus, Euterpe, and Europa — for want of the subject, beetle — or 

 Harpalyce and Phigalia — for want of the subject, moth — become adjectives, when 

 taken for the names of Coleoptera and Lepidoptera respectively ? 



Mr. Marshall refers to " Lonchosternus, Dasystema, Bactylostemum ; Barynotus, 

 Aloconota, Cyclonotum ; Stylosomus, Mgosoma ; Amblystoraus, Sericostoma ; Chas- 

 matopterus, Dictyoptera, Liopterum. Those in italics are, according to Mr. Dunning, 

 substantives neuter, because Sternon, Noton, Soma, Stoma, and Pteron, are neuter. J 

 Wliat shall we say, then, for the others ? They must be equally neuter, notwith- 

 standing their terminations, or what becomes of the rule of the * German illiiminato ?' 

 Or if some of the above words are substantives, and some not, will Mr. Dunning 

 kindly point out which is which, and why ?" The last question ought to have run 

 thus : — " If some of the above words are neuter^ and some not, will Mr. Dunning 

 kindly point out which is which, and why ?" The sequel will answer the question 

 in both forms. 



* Yet there is some authority for the feminine gender ; so that, after all, Corimelana is not quite 

 80 black as she has been painted. — J. W. D. 



t By the way, why do Coleopterists make Cercyon neuter? Cercyon was the son of somebixly, and 

 was ((lain by .somebody else ; after the exploit of the latter somebody, the corpse of the robber, perhaps, 

 ha<l little masculine vigour left, but this is scarcely sufficient ground for making the genus Cercyon 

 iieuter,— J. W. D. 



[This is corrected in Qemminger and Harold's Catalogue. — Eds ] 



X I presume Mr. Marshall will agree with me that Dactylottemum, Cyclonotum , and Lioptcrum, 

 are neuter, whatever may be the gender of ^Effotoma and atricostoma.—J. W. D. 



