232 [February, 
by all means make it agree with ita substantive. But the question is this, " Is 
AcoMthosoma an adjective, or a substantive ?" Is soma the subject, or only part of 
the predicate ? 
But though the name of an individual of the male sex must necessarily be 
masculine, what are we to do when we have to coin a name — not for a single 
individual of one sex — but for a collection of individuals, containing males and 
females, if not neuters also ? The name of a group of bugs, unless it contain the 
real subject, hug, must, according to Mr. Marshall, be an adjective, agreeing in 
gender with that real subject. But there are real bugs male, and real bugs female. 
Are we to call the male bug Acantliosomus verrucosus, and the female Acanthosoma 
verrucosa ? Mr. Marshall can scarcely mean this. We must then have some name 
for the insect which is independent of the sex or gender of the individual. Are we 
to understand Coris or Cimex, according as the name we give to the genus is 
derived from the Greek or the Latin ? in other words, are we bound to make the 
name of every genus of bugs of the masculine gender ? This is a new piinciple of 
nomenclature, quite at variance with the practice hitherto. And if not Coris or 
Cimex, what is the imaginary substantive, meaning hug, that is " understood, or 
supposed to be understood ?" The Greek Coris, which Mr. Marshall tells us is 
masculine,* and the Latin Cimex, which also is usually masculine, though some- 
times made feminine, were used collectively to include all bugs, females as well as 
males. We are guilty of no greater violence when we call a genus of bugs, including 
both sexes, by a masculine name, or when we call another genus by a feminine 
name. 
Are we to abandon the practice of taking for names of genera the names of 
persons and places, which I have always imagined to be nouns substantive ? Or do 
Cercyon,^ Lucanus, Rhxtus, Euterpe, and Eurojpa — for want of the subject, heetle — or 
Harpalyce and PhigaUa — for want of the subject, moth — become adjectives, when 
taken for the names of Coleoptera and Lepidoptera respectively ? 
Mr. Marshall refers to " Lonchosternus, Dasysterna, Dactylosternum ; Barynotus, 
Aloconota, Cyclonotum ; Stylosomus, Mgosoma ; Amblystomus, Sericostoma ; Chas- 
matopterus, Dictyoptera, Liopterum, Those in italics are, according to Mr. Dunning, 
substantives neuter, because Sternon, Noton, Soma, Stoma, and Pteron, are neuter. J 
"What shall we say, then, for the others ? They must be equally neuter, notwith- 
standLag their terminations, or what becomes of the rule of the ' German illuminate ?' 
Or if some of the above words are substantives, and some not, will Mr. Dunning 
kindly point out which is which, and why ?" The last question ought to have run 
thus : — " If some of the above words are neuter, and some not, will Mr. Dunning 
kindly point out which is which, and why ?" The sequel will answer the question 
in both forms. 
* Yet there is some authority for the feminine gender ; so that, after all, Corimelana is not quite 
80 black as she has been painted.— J. W. D. 
+ By the way, why do Coleopterists mal^e Cercyon neuter ? Cercyon was the ion of somebody, and 
was slain by somebody else ; after the exploit of the latter somebody, the corpse of the robber, perhaps, 
had little masculine vigour left, but this is scarcely sufficient ground for making the genus Cercyon 
neuter,— J. W. D. 
[This is corrected in Gemminger and Harold's Catalogue. — Eds.] 
t I presume Mr. Marshall will agree with mo that Dactyloiternum, Cyclonotum, and Liopterum, 
are neuter, whatever may be the gender ot JEgosoma and Sericostoma. — J. W. D. 
