209 
matical or logical. They belonged originally to the language of the vulgar, and of 
children, and are mere familiar nicknames. Their incorrectness consists in their 
not containing the real subject,— whether bird, bug, or man. Instead of this they 
put forward (graphically and poetically) a new subject— breast, tail, body, beard, 
etc.,— from which our extensive knowledge and reading enable us to infer the real 
subject of discourse with much readiness. Thus by Redbreast and WagtaU we 
understand certain birds ; by Longshanks and Lackland, two EngUsh kings ; and 
by Bluebeard, a celebrated Eastern potentate. These names are only tolerable in 
English because the language has no genders. We get into no difficulty by speaking 
)f the yellow Wagtail : the gender of yellow is undetermined, and the difficulty is 
loncealed. So also Bluebeard may be spoken of as a man,— no matter what gen- 
ler his beard may have. But this slovenly idiom is impossible in languages with 
hree genders, like Greek and Latin. The difficulty which is concealed in English 
.ecomes in them fearfully apparent. We might nickname an individual Brazenbeard^ 
laving no fear of genders before our eyes. But in Latin Ahenobarba,.ce, f., will 
lot do for a man's name. His name, like himself, must be mascuUne, and accor- 
ingly we have the adj. Ahenobarbus, taking its gender from the real subject, from 
he man, and not from his beard. Similarly all other words, containing only some 
ttribute of the subject, must in Greek and Latin be adjectives, agreeing in gender 
rith their seal subject, and with nothing else. And this actually amounts to 
.o more than that golden rule of our youth, than an adj. agrees with its subst., &c. 
f this rule is to be evaded in zoological names, as it is in English, the whole 
j^stem of genders becomes absurd, and there is no end to the incongruities which 
'ill occur. Let us take a few published names of genera, such as Lonchostemus, 
lasysterna, Dactylo sternum ; Barynotus, Aloconota, Cyclonotum; Stylosomus] 
^gosoma; Amblystomus, Sericostoma ; Chasmatopterus, Dictyoptera, Liopterum'. 
hose in italics are, according to Mr. Dunning, substantives neuter, because Ster- 
on, Noton, Soma, Stoma, and Pteron, are neuter. What shall we say then for the 
;hers? They must be equally neuter, notwithstanding their terminations, or 
hat becomes of the rule of the " German illuminate ? "—Or if some of the above 
ords are substantives and soms; not, will Mr. Dunning kindly point out which is 
hich, and why ? That he will see the impracticability of this, I am well assured, 
id I have good hopes that he will avail himself of his reserved right to a change' 
■ opinion, after hearing the other side, and will henceforth agree with me that 
Lch words must be treated as adjectives. 
To conclude, let me for a moment revert to the most presumptuous of the 
limants of the rank of noun substantive, viz., Acanthosoma. 
The subject of this word is a certain group of bugs. This subject is not con- 
ined in the word Acanthosoma, but is understood. Every noun that does not 
ntain the subject, must contain the predicate, or it has no meaning at all. And 
it contains only the predicate, it is what grammarians call an adjective. There- 
'6 Acanthosoma is an adjective. Q. E. D. 
I have something to say to other interesting matters mentioned by Mr. Dunning, 
t for want of time and space I must leave them for the present.— T. A. Marshall, 
(liege, Milford Haven, December, 1868. 
[Mr. Marshall's remarks upon the other points raised in Mr. Dunning's paper 
11 appear in our next No. — Eds.] 
The late John CuHis's Entomological Drawings. —The original coloured drawings 
the plants and insects delineated by Mr. Curtis in the " British Entomology " 
ve been, since his decease, in the possession of his widow, who is now desirous 
