234 



[February 



I apprehend that all names of things were originally derived from eomo 

 attribute of the things' In the inception of language, names of qualities would 

 naturally precede the names of things ; nouns adjective would precede nouns 

 substantive. When a word denoting some particular quality was once applied to a 

 particular thing, in process of time the reason for the original application was lost 

 sight of, nevertheless the word adhered to the thing, and became the name of the 

 thing. The adjective became a substantive. In many cases, not only the reason 

 for, but the very meaning of, the name, is lost, so that we feel some difficulty in 

 grasping the notion that the now unmeaning name must, at some time or other, 

 have been a significant word. 



The process of the formation of new substantives in the manner above indicated 

 is continually going on amongst us, and may be detected by comparing the usage 

 of the same word at different epochs. Take, for instance, the Latin hidens, originally 

 an adjective, applicable to any animal possessing a certain formation of teeth ; aa 

 time wore on, it came to be confined to the sheep ; with the older writers it was 

 an epithet, in later days it became a substantive, a synonym of ovis. Take, again, 

 denarius, originally an adjective " containing ton ;" then nummus denarius, the 

 coin containing ten asses ; soon nummus was dropped, denarius became the snb- 

 etantive name of the coin, and was retained, though the coin was afterwards made 

 to contain eighteen asses. The Greek entoma {zoa, understood), and the Latin 

 insecta (anvmaliay understood) were no doubt adjectives at first ; but afterwards 

 became recognised as, and were deemed to be, substantives. Similarly the names 

 of the subdivisions of Entoma or Insecta are nouns substantive, and, moreover, 

 substantives of difierent genders ; thus — as groups of Entoma, n., we have Oistros 

 and Coris, m., Melissa and Myia, f. ; and as groups of Insecta, n., we have the 

 corresponding (EsUnis and Cimex, m., Apis and Musca, f. 



By whatever process " bug," the name of a group of insects (not containing 

 the subject, insect), became a noun substantive, by the same process may " spine- 

 body," the name of a gi'oup of bugs (not containing the subject, hug), become a 

 noun substantive. In whatever way or in whatever sense Coris and Cimex are 

 substantives, in the same way and in the same sense (I submit) may Acantliosoma 

 be a substantive. 



I am therefore still unable to agree that Acanthosoma must be an adjective. 

 But, consistently with the views here propounded, it is still open to me to agree 

 with Mr. Marshall that Acanthosoma should be treated as feminine. — J. W. Dunning, 

 24, Old Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, 11th January, 1869. 



A Further Reply to Mr. Ihmning^s Renuxrks on the Gender of Acanthosoma, Sfc — 

 There are a few other points in Mr. Dunning' s ingenious paper upon which I should 

 like to speak, if it can be done within moderate compass. I will endeavour to con- 

 fine myself to such of his propositions as do not depend upon the principles which 

 I last stated, although it may hardly be possible altogether to keep within these 

 limits. 



1. Mr. Dunning says (at p. 283) :— " So far as I am aware, the practice of 

 making genera which end in -toma, -oma, or -soma, neuter, has been applied only 

 in cases where the name of the genus is a compound of two Greek words of which 



