IS68, ^gg 
Mr. Marshall is careful to point out (p. 282) that Harma, as a generic name, is 
aeuterj the only reason being that the Greek noun substantive 7iarwa is neuter.* 
[f any one were to take Soma for the name of a genus, this, by parity of reasoning, 
(vould be neuter. If Soma is properly made neuter, why is Acanthosoma to be 
nade feminine ? Is not Chalcarma of the same gender as Harma ? 
To Mr. Marshall's assertion that the compound depends for gender on its own 
ermination and nothing more, the Editors of the Magazine add the further ai-gu- 
nent that the word is " supposed to be Latin, whatever its derivation." Admitted 
-but what then ? The name Harma is supposed to be Latin. Do the Editors wish 
o argue that Ha/i-ma should be feminme ? If so, I leave them for the present 
settle their little diflference with Mr. Marshall. In fact, the suggestion of 
he Editors leaves the question precisely where it was; for if Acanthosoma 
'6 a substantive, the termination does not decide its gender; I need scarcely 
emind the Editors that there are plenty of Latin substantives ending in -a 
rhich are masculine, and plenty which are neuter. Acantlwsoma as a Greek 
oun substantive would undoubtedly be neuter ; and if that word had been adopted 
1 Latin, the neuter gender would have been retained. Just as we have Mnigma 
Q.), gen. anigmatis; phasma (n.), -atis ; psalma (n.), -atis; so we should have 
.canthosoma (n.),geD. Acanthosomatis. 
On the adjectival hypothesis, we are bound to make the genitive case Acantho- 
)wce; but I presume Mr. Mai-shall would say Harma, gen. Harmatis. I see that 
t p. 274 of the Magazine he sends glechomce of Linne to the right about, and 
i-operly writes Aulax glechomatis. If, then, there were an Aca^ithosoma which 
Qfected the plant Glechoma, Mr. Marshall must make the genitive case of its name 
) be AcantliosomcE Glechomatis. 
I have purposely omitted any discussion of the " carriage with the lady inside." 
ut so far from seeing anything "ludicrous," " illogical," or indicative of "misun- 
jrstanding the use of words" in making this name neuter, I must confess that 
canthosoma, as a Latinized word of Greek origin, a noun substantive of the third 
icleusion and of neuter gender, a term absolute, not depending on any other word 
iderstood, seems to me admissible ; and if the matter were res integra, and we 
ere now beginning our nomenclatui-e, I should not hesitate (as at present advised) to 
lopt the neuter substantive in preference to the feminine adjective ; though I beg 
reserve to myself the fullest right to go over to the feminine camp when I have 
lard Mr. Marshall in reply. 
My present impression is that Acanthosoma, as the name of a genus of bugs, 
ly be deemed to be either an adjective or a substantive, may be made either 
ninine or neuter— that either of the opposing views is rational, neither of them 
iicrous. It may be that in the existing state of nomenclature, expediency and 
e balance of convenience are in favom- of the retention of Acantlwsoma, fem. 
en. case, AcanthosomcB, Fam. Acanthosomddce), and the rejection of Acanthosoma, 
ut. (gen. case, Acanthosomatis, Fam. Acanthosomatidce) ; at all events, it is desirable 
|,t there should be uniformity in the practice. 
(6.) To pass now to Mr. Marshall's "further words" (vol. iv, p. 280), I find 
ne difficulty in discovering, and I hope we shall be further informed, how far my 
* For the purpose of this argument I adopt Mr. Marshall's suggestion that the genus Aimia of Hahn 
!ht to be written Harma. I do not find that Hahn himself professes to derive the name from /wrwa 
• do I know on what ground Mr. Marshall adopts this derivation. It is not justifiable to impute 
or on conjecture, if any explanation not involving error is forthcoming. If Jr7na can be explained, 
ought not to resort to iZarma ; and at least two derivations may be suggested for Arma without 
