OQfi [February, 
The principles upon which the interpretation of such words depends belongs 
to Logic and not to grammar. Some of them may grammatically be taken either 
for s-abstantives or adjectives, as Trigonas^ns. But is is plain that the author here 
meant to refer to the triangular sadelliim which is an attribute of the insect. 
Hence the word is to be taken as an adjective. To call such an insect a triangular 
shield, would be far fetched, and inappropriate. Similarly if there be any genus 
named Chalcharma (better than Chalcarma), it must be taken as a substantive 
used metaphorically, " Brazen-chariot," — which includes the whole subject. For 
to speak of an insect as Tio/i'mg a hrazen chariot, or brazen-charioted, like one of 
Homer's heroes, verges upon absurdity. And herein fails Mr. Dunniug's analogy 
between Chalcharma and Acanthosoma, both formed alike, grammatically ; that 
logically, the former contains the subject by a metaphor, while the latter does not, 
i. e. it is an adjective. 
3. Mr. Dunning says (p. 184) 
[If Micrornix had been applied to a genus of birds, Mr. Marshall's 
Dijpsocoris argument would have run thus : — " Micrornix = Uttle-hird, a 
compound noun substantive, which, therefore, must have some gender or 
other ; it takes its gender from the subject (bird) ; the word involves both 
subject and predicate ; the subject is a bird, whereof it is predicated that 
it is little." If, instead of a genus of birds, the name were given to a 
genus of moths — as, in fact, the name Ondx has been — then, as a moth is 
not a bird, the argument would be that " in Micrornix the subject is not 
contained, but understood ; of this subject it is predicated that it is like 
a little bird ; bird is not the subject, but part of the predicate." The 
result is, that as the name of a bird Micrornix is a substantive, with a 
gender of its own — as the name of a moth, Micrornix is an adjective, 
depending for its gender on some imaginary substantive understood !] 
I am afraid that the above passage involves a fallacy, which leads in one case 
to a wrong conclusion. The error lies in the statement that if Micrornix be used 
as the name of a moth, then, because a moth is not a bird, Micrornix does not 
contain the subject, i. e. is not a substantive. The fact is that the word Micrornix, 
whether used of a bird or a moth, contains the subject equally, — in the former case 
literally, and in the latter metaphorically. See above, paragraph 2, A. 5. I submit 
then that we have in the above passage an ingenious mixture of two syllogisms, in 
each of which o}-)iia; bears a diSerent sense; (1) Literally, Bird; and (2) Meta- 
phorically, Moth. Exhibiting these syllogisms separately, as follows, we obtain for 
each a just conclusion : — 
Micrornix (Bird) is a substantive. 
Every substantive contains its own 
subject. 
Therefore Micrornix contains its own 
subject, 
viz. Bird. 
Micrornix (Moth) is a substantive. 
Every substantive contains its own 
subject. 
Therefore Micrornix contains its own 
subject, 
viz. Moth. 
The form Micrornis would be preferable, as ornix is only a dialectic variation, 
and comparatively unusual. 
4. — Acanthothorax and Uropteryx are adjectives, whose gender, as remarked by 
Mr. Dunning, is not shewn by their termination. The nomenclator in this case 
