i 
if they nad given the derivation and application of the word when 
4 
- + ~ \ in = ‘ 4 i 1 : i 
it was published, all this trouble would bave been 6toded,, and a 
very pretty compound, with a very pretty allusion would have been 
saved a hideous mauling. So, if you had added the derivation to 
y8arevord Gastancgastris all vould have Rone’ on smoothly, and it 
seems to me that the rule ought to be madethat every one whe coins 
a word should add its derivation and application, as Swainson did 
for many of his, 1t would save a deal] of criticism and miscon- 
ception, 
Since 1 saw yon 1 have been pursuing some of these names into 
out of the way corners, and have unearthed some eurlosities. 
One-is the vord—rusticeta"y—mich+harton propeses-to-change=tex 
. 1 . ‘ . ¥ 9 é * 
*ryustiecula”;, ion the e@reund,, af Lf remember Trignhily, @f <ts peine 
w tu 
badly fommed, and ought to be ruricola if from -cele, He assumsd, 
1 think that Linnaeus’ vorks show a misprint of o fer w, a i fae 
alse has also “rusticoius” under “Falce”, and “rusticela” eccurs 
in the Christian writer Jeneiteus Fortunatus whe died about 6o0oe 
Ae. 3esides, “rustieocla” ils “one whe jives in the country, 
“ruricola” mcestly a “husbandman”, as used by Latin authors, hue 
thermore, “rusti-eola” is as legitimate a formation as “rusti-cus” 
‘ 
1 
a common Latin word, Wharten’s sugpesticn had better be laid up- 
on the shelf. Ahother sugesestion of his te change boschas to 
J0scas, may have more in its:faver; but’in Colum@lla, the only 
ariter who employs the vord in Classic Latin,it is written boschis 
for some two hundred years after it was 
