1869. J 233 
Eut before doing that of which I ought to " see the impracticability," may I 
inquire, who is the " German illumiuato," and where and how has he enunciated 
his " rule ?" So far as my argument is concerned, it by no means follows that 
because Soma is neuter, therefore Stylosomus is neuter ; or that because Pteron ia 
neuter, therefore Dictyoptera is neuter. I have never argued that every compound 
name, into the latter member of which there enters some modification of, or some 
word formed from, a neuter noun substantive, must necessarily be neuter, notwith- 
standing its termination. On the contrary, I say that (whether they be substantives 
or adjectives) Lonchosternus, Barynotus, Stylosomus, Amblystomus, and Chasma- 
topterus, are masculine ; Dasystema, Aloconota, and Dictyoptera, are feminine ; 
and Dactylosternum, Cyclonotum, and Liopterum, are neuter. And the reason why ? 
Because Latin nouns ending in -us are (as a rule, with few exceptions) masculine ; 
Latin nouns ending in -a are (as a rule, but with exceptions) feminine ; and Latin 
nouns ending in -um (at this moment I do not remember an exception) are neuter. 
But I further say that ^gosoma and Sericostoma may be either neuter or 
feminiue, according as we regard them as substantives or adjectives. The Grseco- 
Latin neuter substantive denoting " spine-hody," and the feminine gender of a 
GriEco-Latin adjective denoting " spine-hodied," are identical in form ; and Accmtho' 
soma may be cither one or the other. But neither Acanthusomus nor Acanthosomum 
can be " spine-hody." 
Reverting to the argument that no name of any group of bugs can be a noun 
substantive unless the name contains the subject, bug, let me ask, how comes " bug" 
to be a substantive ? The bugs are only a group of insects. By parity of reasoning, 
no name of any group of insects can be a noun substantive unless the name contains 
the subject, insect. Ergo, "bug" is not a substantive! Similarly "insect," 
" bird," " fish," " man," " animal," are not nouns substantive ! ! And I suppose we 
should ultimately conclude that there is not such a thing as a noun substantive 
at all ! ! ! 
If I were not afraid of making Mr. Marshall's hair stand permanently on end, I 
would suggest that the name of every genus is a noun substantive. I maintain that 
a naturalist who has to name a new genus is at liberty to take any one or more 
Greek word or words, or any one or more Latin word or words, and to apply to the 
genus such one word or a compound of such two or more words formed by analogy 
with the compound formations of the Greeks and Romans respectively ; that the 
gender of the gentjric name is independent of the gender of the Greek or Latin 
word for bug, bird, or whatever the group may be ; that, whether the word taken or 
ooLued was originally a substantive or an adjective, or a compound of each, from the 
time of its assumption as the name of the genus, it becomes and is a collective noun 
substantive. It used to be said that " the name of whatever we can think of or 
speak about is a noun substantive j" whilst an adjective is a woi'd added to a sub- 
stantive to signify some quality or circumstance thereof. I think of a group of 
bugs, and I wish to speak about that group ; I give it a name ; the group com- 
prises individuals of two genders ; the name of the group can have but one gender ; 
the gender of the name must be independent of the gender of the group, which has 
no one gender, independent of the gender of the individuals forming the gi'oup, 
which arc of two genders ; the name is a noun substantive, and has a gender of 
its own. 
