284 [December, j 
It cannot be said that the Greek language does not recognize compound nouns 
substantive. And if it be wished to form in Greek the compound substantive 
corresponding to the English spine-hody, what would it be, if not Acanthosoma ? 
Is there any reason why a compound noun substantive may not be taken for 
the name of a genus, when a simple noun substantive may ? If Earma will do, 
why not Chalcarma ? If Phasma, why not NeopJiasma ? 
The word Trigonaspis may be either a substantive (a triangular shield) , or it 
may be an adjective denoting the possession of a triangular shield. The mere 
compounding of trigonos with aspis does not make the compound trigonaspis an 
adjective any more than compounding " long " and " bow " makes " longbow " an 
adjective. Trigonaspis is as good a substantive as Aspis, Micrornix as good as Ornix. 
If Micrornix had been applied to a genus of birds, Mr. Marshall's Dipsocoris 
argument would have run thus : — " Micrornix = Uttle-hird, a compound noun 
substantive, which, therefore, must have some gender or other ; it takes its gender 
from the subject (bird) ; the word involves both subject and predicate ; the subject 
is a bird, whereof it is predicated that it is little." If, instead of a genus of birds, 
the name were given to a genus of moths — as, in fact, the name Ornix has been — 
then, as a moth is not a bird, the argument would be that " in Micrornix the subject 
is not contained, but understood ; of this subject it is predicated that it is like a 
little bird ; bird is not the subject, but part of the predicate." The result is, that 
as the name of a bird Micrornix is a substantive, with a gender of its own — as the 
name of a moth, Micrornix is an adjective, depending for its gender on some 
imaginary substantive understood ! • 
Suppose that instead of compounding acantlia and soma, the author had formed 
his name from acantJia and thorax. Adopting the same mode of composition as in 
Acanthosoma, we obtain Acanthothorax. By a similar process we have Uropteryx. 
The three genders of the adjectives Acanthothorax and TJropteryx would be 
identical. Whatever, then, " the substantive understood, or supposed to be under- 
stood," might be, whether masculine, feminine, or neuter, the name of the genus 
would still remain Acanthothorax or Uropteryx. The founder of Acanthothorax 
might understand a feminine substantive, and make the name feminine ; the 
founder of Uropteryx might have understood a masculine substantive, and made the 
name masculine. Would Mr. Marshall allow Acanthothorax spinosa or Uropteryx 
samhucarius to stand ? If not, why not ? If he would, he must equally allow 
Spilothorax punctatwm and Micropteryx pv/rpwrellvm,. We should then have three 
genera, say, Ceratothorax masculine, Acanthothorax feminine, and Spilothorax neuter ; 
and in like manner with the compounds o{ pteryx. Nay, further, we might have all 
three genders in the same genus. A., an author of a masculine turn of mind, might 
call his species Acanthothorax niger ; B., more partial to the feminine gender, 
might insist upon naming another species Acanthothorax alba; whilst C, an epicene, 
might have a preference for Acanthothorax rufum. And if this noun-adjective 
principle of the gender being " dependent on the termination and nothing more" be 
sustainable, no one of the trio can say that either of the other two is wrong. 
Is not Acanthothorax a noun substantive of masculine gender, and masculine 
because thorax is masculine ? Uroptenjx a noun substantive of feminine gender, 
and feminine because pteryx is feminine? Acanthosoyna a noun substantive of 
neuter gender, and neuter because soma is neuter P 
