256 



[Marcb. 



" The principles upon whicli the interpretation of suoh words depends belongs 

 to logic, and not to grammar." I agi-ee. The question of what a name is gram- 

 matically, is distinct both from the interpretation of the word, and from the reason 

 why the name is given. And it seems to me that the name of a group of animals 

 may well be a noun substantive, even though it express only some attribute of the 

 subject, or even though it were selected by reason of some peculiarity of a part 

 only of the subject. Ctenidium, as the name of a beetle, is a " substantive taken 

 figuratively," the genus being named " little comb " either jocularly, because it 

 comea near Trichopteryx, " hair-vrixxg" or because the fringed apex of the wings 

 (not the whole beetle) resembles a comb j it would be none the less a " substantive 

 taken figuratively " if applied to a moth with pectinate antennae. If I may be 

 allowed to say so, Mr. Marshall's argument confounds two different things — the 

 name, and the reason for the name. I name a moth Uropteryx because it has caudate 

 wings ; but it does not follow that Uropteryx means " having caudated* wings," or 

 is an adjective. I am at liberty to take the substantive UropteryXy " tail-wing," 

 as the name of a moth which has tailed wings, just as I may take the substantive 

 Harma as the name of a bug which has the shape of a chariot. 



Mr. Marshall's division (A. h.), p. 235, includes "proper names" among the 

 " substantives taken figuratively." Whatever its derivation or meaning, the name 

 of a genus is a " proper name," and therefore a noun substantive. 



3. Mr. Marshall submits that the Micrornixf passage {ante p. 184) is a " mix- 

 ture of two syllogisms" which are exhibited separately at p. 236. The syllogisms 

 involved in my argument are distinct enough, as follows : — 



Micromix (Bird) is a substantive. 



Every substantive has a gender of its 

 own. 



Therefore Micromix (Bird) has a gender 

 of its own. 



Every substantive contains its own 

 subject. 



Micromix (Moth) does not contain its 

 own subject. 



Therefore Micromix (Moth) is not a 

 substantive. 



The second syllogism at p. 236 is in fact the reverse of that contained in my 

 argument. It may bo that, on the metaphorical theory, which when I wrote had 

 not been developed, the " passage involves a fallacy," owing to the double sense in 

 which, on this theory, Omix is used. I need scarcely say that the passage, like the 

 demonstration at p. 230, was intended as a reductio ad ahsurdum of the contention 

 — taken literally, as I then understood it, not metaphorically, as it is now explained 

 — that the name of a bird or bug, if it be a substantive, must contain the subject, 

 bird or bug, as the case may be. 



But now it is conceded that the subject may be expressed by a metaphor, and 

 I begin to think the day may come when Mr. Marshall will admit Acanthosoma as a 

 substantive. The metaphorical "chariot" will open the way for the figurative 

 " shield," and leave a passage for the graphic " spine-body " and the poetic " red- 

 breast." It is not disputed that a compound noun substantive may be taken as 

 the name of a genus, or that acanthosoma. is the corz*ect form of the Greek noun 



* Query, caudate. — J. "W. D. 



+ Mr. Murbhall says " the form Micrornit would be preferable." I thought the reference to the 

 Lepiilopterou"* genus Ornta- was sufficient to show why I took the foini Micromix. If " Omix is only 

 a dialectic variation and com|)arat,vely unusual," I would not change tlie established name Omix into 

 Omit, though I might prefer the latter, if the name were now for the first time being published.— J. W. D. 



