Jgg [December, 
friend desires to go in altering names that are already current. Viewed as canons 
for future guidance, I agree in the main with Mr. Marshall's propositions ; but 
framing rules for future nomenclatora, and applying those rules retrospectively to 
established names, are very different matters. I desire to see scientific nomen- 
clature scientifically constructed, and think that enough has already been said to 
show that I am not bigottedly conservative of blunders, however venerable from 
antiquity ; at the same time, considerations of convenience render me averse to 
making alterations in some, at least, of the instances classified by Mr. Marshall. 
Take his first class of "barbarism" — words without meaning, or formed from 
Chinese, Sanskrit, Hebrew, and Arabic roots. These are said to be incxu^ble. la 
it, then, proposed to root them out ? Though not enamoured of such names, I am 
scarcely prepared for their wholesale excision from our Lists. True, it is difficult 
to say where we must stop ; if we admit Chinese and Hebrew, why not Zulu ? or 
even American ? I have some recollection of having seen printed descriptions of 
beetles under the specific names of " Copper-head " and "Know-nothing!" Not 
long ago I read in this Magazine, (iv, 246) a description of an Aulocera Werang ; 
the context showed that Werang is the name of an Indian mountain-pass where 
the butterfly had been captured. What would be thought of a PapiUo Hamimersmithy 
a Pieris Mont-Bla7ic, or a Polyommatiis Jungfrau ? A few years ago certain French 
authors gave such names as Cetonia Hope, Lomaptera Latreille, Gnathocera Macleay; 
but subsequent writers have properly converted these into Hopii, Latreillii, Macleaii 
([N.B. Not Hopei, &c.], and this seems to point out the appropriate mode of treat- 
ment for the Werangs, whose nakedness should at least be clothed in a garb of 
mediaeval Latinity. 
(7.) Again, take Mr. Marshall's 6th class. " Compounds of two nonns, in 
which the subject is placed first, and the subordinate idea last, thereby destroying 
the sense. Let any one try this inversion upon the English compounds London- 
Bridge, watch-pocket, black-beetle, &c., and the result will be similar to that of 
CorimelcBna for MelanocoHs, Derephysia for Physodera." Is the " destruction of the 
sense" by inverting " river-horse " into " horse-river" sufficient to induce us to 
abandon hippopotamus ? Is rhinoceros to be turned into ceratorhinus ? To substitute 
Physodera for Derephysia is to make a new name, not to correct the spelling of the 
old one. 
(8.) As to the 7th class, perhaps a little more explanation is requisite, lest it 
should be supposed that Mr. Marshall had laid it down that every compound of two 
Greek nouns is barbarous unless the two are connected by the letter O. It might 
be well to point out the distinction between Acetropis, Gonianotiis, &c , and such 
existing Greek forms as Oidipous, Calliope, calMgraphos, andrapodon, sciagraphos, \ 
acesphoros, aspiidephoros, sagephoros, &c. 
(9.) Again, Mr. Marshall says " iBliodes should be Mlioides; the termination 
'Odes means ' full of ;' similarity is expressed by -oides." But surely the termination * 
•odes (with omega) not nnfrequently expresses similarity, being in fact nothing but 
a contraction of •oeides (with omicron). Thus isthmodes, cunodes, cuclodes, sphecodes, 
chalcodes = isthmoeides, &c. ; and such instances, occurring in classical authors of 
repute, if not worthy of imitation, seem to me sufficient warrant for allowing 
JEUodes to stand. 
But I fear my discursive remarks are running to too great a length ; they 
should have been shorter had I had more time. — J. W. Dunning, 24, Old BuUdings, 
Lincoln's Inn, 13th November, 1868. 
