m9.] 257 
substantive corresponding to " spine-body," oi tbat acanthosoma, as a Greek noun 
substantive, would be neuter. In truth, i is as good a Greek substantive as 
neophasma, and of the same gender. The fact that the nomina trivialia are in the 
genus Acanthosoma made neuter, shews that the author had in his contemplation 
the neater substantive acantliosoma, and not the feminine gender of any such 
adjective as acanthosomus. And if a compound noun substantive, coiTectly formed, 
may be applied, and has leen applied, are we justified in rejecting the author's own 
indication of the origin and meaning of his name, simply because we, in framing a 
name to express the same idea, might have arrived at it by a different process 
which would have given it a different gender ? 
4. Mr. Marshall intimates that he would himself have made both Acanthothoraso 
and Vropteryx masculine, on the principle of the mascuHne gender being more 
worthy than the feminine. This strikes me as a new application of that " precept." 
But what I am most interested to know — particularly with reference to the pro. 
jected Catalogue— is, whether it is proposed that JJroptenjici samhucaria shall be 
changed into U. sambucarius, and so on with the rest ? 
5. Harma may be a more reasonable name for the bug than Anna; but that is 
not the question. Agassiz gives a derivation for Arma (I do not say a satisfactory 
one) different from any of those mentioned by Mr. Marshall. If Hahn had written 
either Arma hiridii,7n or Harma lurida, there would have been stronger ground for 
supposing that the generic name was derived from the Greek word for a chariot ; 
but the supposition seems to me to be rebutted by (1) the absence of the initial 
aspirate, and (2) the deliberate adoption of the feminine gender. The case is not 
like Hyponomeuta, where Stephens himself gives the derivation, and if he had not, no 
other is possible. That the feminine gender was advisedly used by Hahn is shown 
by the change of the Fabrician Cimex luridus into Arma lurida, which Mr. Marshall 
now wishes to change into Harma luridum, 
6. As to the rejection of barbarian and badly constructed names, I am afraid 
it would be impossible either to obtain the concurrence of the " great head-centres 
of Entomology," or with such concurrence to procure such rejection. 
Mr. Marshall's opening sentence (iv, 259), " the publication of a Catalogue of 
British Insects under the auspices of a scientific Society offers an opportunity for 
getting rid of a number of flagrant instances of cacography in names, which it is 
to be hoped will not be neglected" — and the passage (iv, 280) respecting tlie 
"adoption "of certain "corrections to the nomenclature of Britiah. Heteroptera," 
and of the case with which "a similar reformation" might be effected in other 
Orders — led me to suppose that the rejection of all the specified " instances of 
cacography " was proposed ; and it was particularly with reference to the prepa- 
ration and publication of the said Catalogue that my enquiries were made as to the 
extent to which it was wished to carry the expurgation of our Lists. If the object 
was to "check the formation of such words" for the future, I have only to express 
my heartiest wish that this object may be effected, and to repeat what I said 
before (p. 186) — " Viewed as canons for future guidance, I agree in the main with 
Mr. Marshall's propositions." 
7. I referred to hippopotamus, not as being a correct compound, or as " sub- 
