1869.1 



233 



But before doing that of which I ought to sco the impracticability," may I 

 inquire, who is the " German illuminato," and where and how has he enunciated 

 his " rule ?" So far as my argument is concerned, it by no means follows that 

 because Soma is neuter, therefore Stylosomus is neuter ; or that because Pteron ia 

 neuter, therefore Dictycyptera is neuter. I have never argued that every compound 

 name, into the latter member of which there enters some modification of, or some 

 word formed from, a neuter noun substantive, must necessarily be neuter, notwith- 

 standing its termination. On the contrary, I say that (whether they be substantives 

 or adjectives) Lonchostemus, Barynotus, Stylosomus, Amblystomus, and Chasma- 

 topterus, are masculine ; Dasystema, Aloconota, and Dictyoptera, are feminine ; 

 and Dactylosternum, Cyclonotum, and Liopterum, are neuter. And the reason why ? 

 Because Latin nouns ending in -us are (as a rule, with few exceptions) masculine ; 

 Latin nouns ending in -a are (as a rule, but with exceptions) feminine j and Latin 

 nouns ending in -um (at this moment I do not remember an exception) are neuter. 



But I further say that Mgosoma and Sericostoma may be either neuter or 

 feminine, according as we regard them as substantives or adjectives. The Graeco- 

 Latin neuter substantive denoting " spine-lody," and the feminine gender of a 

 Gra3Co-Latin adjective denoting " spine-hodied" are identical in form ; and Acantho- 

 soma may be either one or the other. But neither Acantlwsomus nor Acanthosomum, 

 can be " spine-hody." 



Keverting to the argument that no name of any group of bugs can be a noun 

 substantive unless the name contains the subject, hug, let me ask, how comes " bug" 

 to be a substantive ? The bugs are only a group of insects. By parity of reasonings 

 no name of any group of insects can be a noun substantive unless the name contains 

 the subject, insect. Ergo, "bug" is not a substantive! Similarly "insect,'' 

 " bird," " fish," man," " animal," are not nouns substantive ! ! And I suppose we 

 should ultimately conclude that there is not such a thing as a noun substantive 

 at all ! ! ! 



If I were not afraid of making Mr. Marshall's hair stand permanently on end, I 

 would suggest that the name of every genus is a noun substantive. I maintain that 

 a naturalist who has to name a new genus is at liberty to take any one or more 

 Greek word or words, or any one or more Latin word or words, and to apply to the 

 genus such one word or a compound of such two or more words formed by analogy 

 with the compound formations of the Greeks and Romans respectively ; that the 

 gender of the generic name is independent of the gender of the Greek or Latin 

 word for hug, hird, or whatever the group may be ; that, whether the word taken or 

 coined was originally a substantive or an adjective, or a compound of each, from the 

 time of its assumption as the name of the genus, it becomes and is a collective noun 

 substantive. It used to be said that " the name of whatever we can think of or 

 speak about is a noun substantive ;" whilst an adjective is a word added to a sub- 

 stantive to signify some quality or circumstance thereof. I think of a group of 

 bugs, and I wish to speak about that group ; I give it a name ; the group com- 

 prises individuals of two genders j the name of the group can have but one gender ; 

 the gender of the name must be independent of the gender of the group, which has 

 no one gender, independent of the gender of the individuals forming the group^ 

 which are of two genders ; the name is a noun substantive, and has a gender of 

 its own. 



