18(19. J 



267 



substantive corresponding to " spine-body," oi that acantJiosonm, as a Greek uoun 

 substantive, would be neuter. In truth, i is as good a Greek substantive as 

 neophasma, and of the same gender. The fact that the nomina trivialia are in the 

 genus Acanthosoma made neuter, shews that the author had in his contemplation 

 the neuter substantive acanthosoma, and not the feminine gender of any such 

 adjective as acanthosomxis. And if a compound noun substantive, correctly formed, 

 may he applied, and has been applied, are we justified in rejecting the author's own 

 indication of the origin and meaning of his name, simply because we, in framing a 

 name to express the same idea, might have arrived at it by a difierent process 

 which would have given it a different gender ? 



4. Mr. Marshall intimates that he would himself have made both Acomthothorax 

 and Uropteryx masculine, on the principle of the masculine gender being more 

 worthy than the feminine. This strikes me as a new application of that " precept." 

 But what I am most interested to know — particularly with reference to the pro- 

 jected Catalogue — is, whether it is proposed that Uropteryx samibucaria shall be 

 changed into U. samhucarius, and so on vrith the rest ? 



5. Harma may be a more reasonable name for the bug than Arma ; but that is 

 not the question. Agassiz gives a derivation for Arma (I do not say a satisfactory 

 one) different from any of those mentioned by Mr. Marshall. If Hahn had written 

 either Arma luridum or Harma lurida, there would have been stronger ground for 

 supposing that the generic name was derived from the Greek word for a chaiiot ; 

 but the supposition seems to me to be rebutted by (1) the absence of the initial 

 aspirate, and (2) the deliberate adoption of the feminine gender. The case is not 

 like Hyponomeuta, where Stephens himself gives the derivation, and if he had not, no 

 other is possible. That the feminine gender was advisedly used by Hahn is shown 

 by the change of the Fabrician Cimex luridus into Arma lurida, which Mr. Marshall 

 now wishes to change into Harma luridum. 



6. As to the rejection of barbarian and badly constructed names, I am afraid 

 it would be impossible either to obtain the concurrence of the " great head-centres 

 of Entomology," or with such concurrence to procure such rejection. 



Mr. Marshall's opening sentence (iv, 259), " the publication of a Catalogue of 

 British Insects under the auspices of a scientific Society offers an opportunity for 

 getting rid of a number of flagi'ant instances of cacography in names, which it is 

 to be hoped will not be neglected" — and the passage (iv, 280) respecting the 

 "adoption" of certain "corrections to the nomenclature of British Heteroptera,'* 

 and of the case with which "a similar reformation" might be effected in other 

 Orders — led me to suppose that the rejection of all the specified " instances of 

 cacography " was proposed ; and it was particularly with reference to the prepa- 

 ration and publication of the said Catalogue that my enquiries were made as to the 

 extent to which it was wished to carry the expurgation of our Lists. If the object 

 was to *' check the formation of such words" for the future, I have only to express 

 my heartiest wish that this object may be effected, and to repeat what I said 

 before (p. 186) — " "Viewed as canons for future guidance, I agree in the main with 

 Mr. Marshall's propositions." 



7. I referred to hippopotamus, not as being a correct compound, or as "sub- 



