186 9.] 237 
would have to be guided by his own good taste, and if he felt himself at a loss, he 
might remember a precept, devised to meet a similar difficulty, viz., That the 
masculine gender is more worthy than the feminine, &c., &c. This would be my 
argument for making the names masculine. For making them feminine or neuter 
I should not be able to give any reason. 
5. As to the word Harma, chariot, — I adopted the reading because " chariot " 
is an apt similitude for the form of the insect. The only meanings of Anna, are 
(1) A medical term for patient's food, and (2) Union of the sexes. Neither of these 
significations are likely to have been in the author's mind. The Latin word, 
meaning " weapons," is still less reasonable, on account of its being plural. 
6. If there were an Acanthosoma which aflfected the ground ivy, I should, as 
Mr. Dunning rightly infers, make its gender to be Acanthosomce Olechomatis. 
7. I am unable to propose any remedy for Chinese and other unclassical names 
generally current, or for badly-constructed words like Derephysia. It would require 
a much higher authority than mine to procure their rejection, or probably the con;- 
current authority of some of the great " head-centres " of entomology. But if by 
calling attention to them I could be the humble instrument of checking the forma- 
tion of such names for the future, I should consider that I had effected a good 
thing. 
8. Mr. Dunning quotes the word Hip2J02Jotamus as a case in point, subversive 
of the rules for compound terms which I brought forward. I need hardly say that 
these rules are not of my invention, but are to be found in many grammatical 
works, and apply to languages generally, as being essential to the process of human 
thought. Hvppopotamtis means Horse-River and not River- Horse. It is an incorrect 
compound, used only by Strabo and Galen, and must have sounded strangely to 
Greek ears. Better writers called the animal Hippos potamios. The wart-hog of 
South Africa in the Regent's Park probably does not know that he stands ticketed 
as a River (Chceropotanius), instead of a porcine animal. Nevertheless we shall 
continue to speak of the Hippopotamus without much self-reproach, a,nd may throw 
the blame upon the blundering ancients, who ought to have known better. 
9. Mr. Dunning asks the question (p. 186) whether " RJiinoceros is to be turned 
into Ceratorhinus ? " For no reason that I can see. Both words are correct, and 
are equivalent terms, differing only in their ai-rangemenfc of the parts of the 
predicate. 
iiWnoceros=Having a nasal horn. 
Cerafor7iinus:^ Having a horned nose. 
Like Rhinoceros is Monoceros, having a single horn, and Diceros having two horns. 
In a Greek author we have Diceros Selene, the two-horned Moon. Such words are 
of course adjectives, and, like our names of genera, only become substantives 
conventionally. 
10. As to the difference between such names as Acetivpis, OonianotuSf &c., 
and the classical forms not compounded with an o, (Edipus, Calliope, &c. The 
subject is much too extensive to be entered upon here, and is of little interest to 
entomologists. They will seldom be wrong in compounding names from Greek 
nouns by the intervention of the letter o, elided before a vowel. Those who wish 
