255 
sion that the " Reply on the Gender o£ Acanthosoma," as published in the January 
number of the Magazine, was complete ; had I known that there was more to follow 
on the same matter and the same point, I would have waited for the " Further 
Reply;" and I trust that Mr. Marshall will pardon the seeming discourtesy of my 
having interrupted before he had finished. 
1. It is quite true that Mr. Marshall's original objection included words like 
Phanerotoma, Pentatoma, and Tapinoma ; it is equally true that such words were 
excluded fi-om my attempt to maintain the neutrality of Acanthosoma (vide ante, p. 
183). I agree that Phanerotoma, Pentatoma, and such words, are feminine ; but I 
hold them to be, as names of genera of insects, feminine substantives. 
2. No doubt Mr. Marshall will object to the assertion (ante, p 230) that « the 
subject is not contained in the word Harma, but understood." He will now say that 
Harma does contain the subject, not literally, but figuratively or metaphorically. 
But if figure and metaphor are admissible, why are we to stop short at a chariot ? 
It is allowable to call one bug Harma, " chariot," or even Chalcarma,* " brazen- 
chariot," but it is "far-fetched and inappropriate " to call another bug Trigonaspis, 
" triangular-shield ! " Many will be apt to think this a distinction without a dif- 
ference. The difference upon which Mr. Marshall relies is this— in the one case the 
whole animal is shaped like a chariot, in the other a part only of the animal is 
shaped like a three-cornered shield. If the whole insect had been shield-shaped, 
Trigonaspis would have been a substantive, " containing the subject by a metaphor ;" 
but as part only of the insect is shaped like a shield— metaphor, away \— Trigonaspis 
is an adjective, expressing only an attribute of the creature, it does not denote " the 
whole of the subject." 
But if recourse may bo had to a figure of rhetoric to explain Harma, why not 
also to explain Trigonaspis ? Metaphor is the figure by which one thing is put for 
another; synecdoche is the figure by which part is put for the whole— as caput for 
homo, tectwm for domus. If metaphor be admissible, why is synecdoche to be ex- 
cluded ? 
After all, what for the present purpose is the difference between a name which 
" contains the subject by a metaphor," and a name which " expresses only some 
attribute of the subject ?" Harm,a is said to contain the subject by a metaphor ; 
in fact it only denotes the possession by the subject of a particular attribute. 
" Harma, chariot,t is an apt simihtude for the form of the insect." Being of the 
form of a chariot is an attribute of the insect, and it is that attribute, and that 
alone, to which the name refers. 
Again, the Greek soma signifies the body as a whole, the whole body. Acayi- 
thosoma therefore expresses the whole of the subject or creatiire designated ; and 
doing so (vide ante, p. 230), it " ceases to be an adjective." 
Mr. Marshall says "Chalcharma (better than Chalcarma)." I am not aware (hat the noun sub- 
itantiTe anywhere occurs in Greek ; but ihe adjective is used by Pindar as an epitlict of the aod of war. 
riniiar mtli-s it, Glialcarmatoe Ares, not C/iulcHarmatos. I can therefore continue to write Chalcarma 
wiihout much seli-reproarh, .iiid tluow ilie hlame upon the blundering ancients, who ought to have 
Known better." .Ur. Marshall does not like C7taic«/mrt; perliaps so ne one will sav that even Chal- 
Marma is capable ot Jiuprovement ; what if C/ialcoharma were suggested 7— J. W. D. 
t It is a still more apt similitude for the form of the butterfly; the outline of the wings when 
slevated m repose and close together— the side view of the butterfly— is exactly that of achariot.-J.W J>i 
