256 ^''"^'' 
"The principles upon wMcli the interpretation of such words depends belongs 
to logic, and not to grammar." I agree. The question of what a name is gram- 
matically, is distinct both from the interpretation of the word, and from the reason 
why the name is given. And it seems to me that the name of a group of animals 
may well be a noun substantive, even though it express only some attribute of the 
subject, or even though it were selected by reason of some peculiarity of a part 
only of the subject. Ctenidium, as the name of a beetle, is a " substantive taken . 
figuratively," the genus being named "little comb" either jocularly, because it, 
comes near Triclwpteryx, " 7iair-wing,» or because the fringed apex of the wings i 
(not the whole beetle) resembles a comb ; it would be none the less a " substantive ) 
taken figuratively " if applied to a moth with pectinate antennae. If I may be ; 
allowed to say so, Mr. Marshall's argument confounds two different things— the 
name, and the reason for the name. I name a moth Uropteryx because it has caudate 
wings ; but it does not follow that Uropteryx means " having caudated* wings," or 
is an 'adjective. I am at liberty to take the substantive Uropteryx, " tail-wing," 
as the name of a moth which has tailed wings, just as I may take the substantive 
Harma as the name of a bug which has the shape of a chariot. 
Mr. Marshall's division (A. b.), p. 235, includes "proper names" among the 
« substantives taken figuratively." Whatever its derivation or meaning, the name 
of a genus is a " proper name," and therefore a noun substantive. 
3. Mr. Marshall submits that the Micrornixf passage {ante p. 184) ia a " mix- 
ture of two syllogisms" which are exhibited separately at p. 236. The syllogisms 
involved in my argument are distinct enough, as follows :— 
Micrornix (Bird) is a substantive. 
Every substantive has a gender of its 
Every substantive contains its own 
subject. 
Micrornix (Moth) does not contain its 
own subject. 
Therefore Micromiso (Moth) is not a 
substantive. 
Therefore Micrornix (Bird) has a gender 
of its own. 
The second syllogism at p. 236 is in fact the reverse of that contained in my 
argument. It may be that, on the metaphorical theory, which when I wrote had 
not been developed, the " passage involves a fallacy," owing to the double sense in 
which, on this theory, Ornix is used. I need scarcely say that the passage, Hke the 
demonstration at p. 230, was intended as a reductio ad ahsurdum of the contentioD 
-taken literally, as I then understood it, not metaphorically, as it is now explained 
-that the name of a bird or bug, if it be a substantive, must contain the subject; 
bird or bug, as the case may be. 
But now it is conceded that the subject may be expressed by a metaphor, and 
I begin to think the day may come when Mr. Marshall will admit Acanthosoma as 2 
substantive. The metaphorical "chariot" will open the way for the figurative 
" shield," and leave a passage for the graphic " spine-body " and the poetic « red 
breast." It is not disputed that a compound noun substantive may be taken as 
the name of a genu s, or that acanthosoma is the correct form of the Greek noui 
