234 [February 
I apprehend that all names of things were originally derived from some 
attribute of the things. In the inception of language, names of qualities would 
naturally precede the names of things ; nouns adjective would precede nouns 
substantive. When a word denoting some particular quality was once applied to a 
particular thing, in process of time the reason for the original application was lost 
sight of, nevertheless the word adhered to the thing, and became the name of the 
thing. The adjective became a substantive. In many cases, not only the reason 
for, but the very meaning of, the name, is lost, so that we feel some difficulty in 
grasping the notion that the now unmeaning name must, at some time or other, 
have been a significant word. 
The process of the formation of new substantives in the manner above indicated 
is continually going on amongst us, and may be detected by comparing the usage 
of the same word at different epochs. Take, for instance, the Latin hidens, originally 
an adjective, applicable to any animal possessing a certain formation of teeth ; as 
time wore on, it came to be confined to the sheep ; with the older writers it was 
an epithet, in later days it became a substantive, a synonym of ovis. Take, again, 
denarius, originally an adjective " containing ten ;" then nummus denarius, the 
coin containing ten asses ; soon nummus was dropped, denarius became the sub- 
stantive name of the coin, and was retained, though the coin was afterwards made 
to contain eighteen asses. The Greek entoma (soa, understood), and the Latin 
insecta {animalia, understood) were no doubt adjectives at first ; but afterwards 
became recognised as, and were deemed to be, substantives. Similarly the names 
of the subdivisions of Entoma or Insecta are nouns substantive, and, moreover, 
substantives of difierent genders ; thus — as groups of Entoma, n., we have Oistros 
and Coris, m., Melissa and Myia, f. ; and as groups of Insecta, n., we have the 
corresponding CEstrus and Cimex, m., Apis and Musca, f. 
By whatever process " bug," the name of a group of insects (not containing 
the subject, insect), became a noun substantive, by the same process may "spine- 
body," the name of a group of bugs (not containing the subject, hug), become a 
noun substantive. In whatever way or in whatever sense Coris and Cimex are 
substantives, in the same way and in the same sense (I submit) may Acantliosoma 
be a substantive. 
I am therefore still unable to agree that Acanthosoma must be an adjective. 
But, consistently wibh the views here propounded, it is stiU open to me to agree 
with Mr. Marshall that Acanthosoma should be treated as feminine. — J. W. Dunning, 
24, Old Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, 11th January, 1869. 
A Fv/fiher Reply to Mr. Dunning' s Remarhs on the Oender of Acanthosoma, Sfc. — 
There are a few other points in Mr. Dunuing's ingenious paper upon which I should 
like to speak, if it can be done within moderate compass. I will endeavour to con- 
fine myself to such of his propositions as do not depend upon the principles which 
I last stated, although it may hardly be possible altogether to keep within these 
limits. 
1. Mr. Dunning says (at p. 283) : — " So far as I am aware, the practice of 
making genera which end in -toma, -oma, or -soma, neuter, has been applied only 
in caaea where the name of the genus is a compound of two Greek words of which 
