This page is in need of repair, being indecisive in the first part as to whether there may be multiple Bandersnatches, and later giving reason to believe that the name refers to a category of beast rather than a specific one. Therefore, the phrase "frumious bandersnatch" either describes all bandersnatches as frumious, or identifies the single member of that group that is frumious; so the final paragraph dedicated to Carroll's bandersnatch is generally misguided. One should not say, "the hero... must shun a Bandersnatch that is frumious," but rather, "the hero must either shun all Bandersnatches (being that they are all fumious), or that Bandersnatch which is frumious." The second sentence of the paragraph in question is nice and appropriate, and should in any case be preserved. The third one isn't bad, either.
- It is not stated whether there are not, necessarily, non-frumious Bandersnatches, but merely that the hero of the poem must shun a Bandersnatch that is frumious. At the same time, it may be that 'frumious' is not a merely descriptive adjective, but a definitive one, describing the essential quality of the Bandersnatch. It should be noted that a Google search of 'frumious' inevitably brings up 'Bandersnatch', and, conversely, no Bandersnatch can be googled without its frumiousness being mentioned.)
- It is unclear whether 'frumious' is merely a descriptive adjective, or a definitive one, describing the essential quality of all Bandersnatches. In the former case, the hero need only shun that particular Bandersnatch which is frumious; however, this turn of phrase is ordinarily used in the latter sense, and indicates that all Bandersnatches should be shunned. It should be noted that a Google search of 'frumious' inevitably brings up 'Bandersnatch', and, conversely, no Bandersnatch can be googled without its frumiousness being mentioned.