58Phil. Bot.231.Terminations are well adapted to express definite systematic relations, such as those of chemistry, but they must be employed with a due regard to all the bearings of the system. Davy proposed to denote the combinations of other substances with chlorine by peculiar terminations; usinganefor the smallest proportion of Chlorine, andaneafor the larger, as Cuprane, Cupranea. In this nomenclature, common salt would beSodane, and Chloride of Nitrogen would beAzotane. This suggestion never found favour. It was341objected that it was contrary to the Linnæan precept, that a specific name must not be united to a generic termination. But this was not putting the matter exactly on its right ground; for the rules of nomenclature of natural history do not apply to chemistry; and the Linnæan rule might with equal propriety have been adduced as a condemnation of such terms as Sulphurous, Sulphuric. But Davy’s terms were bad; for it does not appear that Chlorine enters, as Oxygen does, into so large a portion of chemical compounds, that its relations afford a key to their nature, and may properly be made an element in their names.This resource, of terminations, has been abused, wherever it has been used wantonly, or without a definite significance in the variety. This is the case in M. Beudant’s Mineralogy. Among the names which he has given to new species, we find the following (besides many inite), Scolexerose, Opsimose, Exanthelose, &c.; Diacrase, Panabase, Neoplase; Neoclese; Rhodoise, Stibiconise, &c.; Marceline, Wilhelmine, &c.; Exitele, and many others. In addition to other objections which might be made to these names, their variety is a material defect: for to make this variety depend on caprice alone, as in those cases it does, is to throw away a resource of which chemical nomenclature may teach us the value.AphorismXXII.When alterations in technical terms become necessary, it is desirable that the new term should contain in its form some memorial of the old one.Wehave excellent examples of the advantageous use of this maxim in Linnæus’s reform of botanical nomenclature. His innovations were very extensive, but they were still moderated as much as possible, and connected in many ways with the names of plants then in use. He has himself given several rules of nomenclature, which tend to establish this connexion of the342old and new in a reform. Thus he says, ‘Generic names which are current, and are not accompanied with harm to botany, should be tolerated59.’ ‘A passable generic name is not to be changed for another, though more apt60’. ‘New generic names are not to be framed so long as passable synonyms are at hand61.’ ‘A generic name of one genus, except it be superfluous, is not to be transferred to another genus, though it suit the other better62.’ ‘If a received genus requires to be divided into several, the name which before included the whole, shall be applied to the most common and familiar kind63.’ And though he rejects allgenericnames which have not a Greek or Latin root64, he is willing to make an exception in favour of those which from their form might be supposed to have such a root, though they are really borrowed from other languages, asThea, which is the Greek for goddess;Coffea, which might seem to come from a Greek word denoting silence (κωφός);Cheiranthus, which appears to mean hand-flower, but is really derived from the ArabicKeiri: and many others.59Philosophia Botanica, Art. 242.60Art. 246.61Art. 247.62Art. 249.63Art. 249.64Art. 232.As we have already said, the attempt at a reformation of the nomenclature of Mineralogy made by Professor Mohs will probably not produce any permanent effect, on this account amongst others, that it has not been conducted in this temperate mode; the innovations bear too large a proportion to the whole of the names, and contain too little to remind us of the known appellations. Yet in some respects Professor Mohs has acted upon this maxim. Thus he has called one of his classesSpar, becauseFelsparbelongs to it. I shall venture to offer a few suggestions on this subject of Mineralogical Nomenclature.It has already been remarked that the confusion and complexity which prevail in this subject render a reform very desirable. But it will be seen, from the reasons assigned under theNinthAphorism, that no permanent system of names can be looked for, till a343sound system of classification be established. The best mineralogical systems recently published, however, appear to converge to a common point; and certain classes have been formed which have both a natural-historical and a chemical significance. These Classes, according to Naumann, whose arrangement appears the best, are Hydrolytes, Haloids, Silicides, Oxides of Metals, Metals, Sulphurides (Pyrites, Glances, and Blendes), and Anthracides. Now we find;—that the Hydrolytes are all compounds, such as are commonly termedSalts;—that the Haloids are, many of them, already calledSpars, asCalc Spar,Heavy Spar,Iron Spar,Zinc Spar;—that theSilicides, the most numerous and difficult class, are denoted for the most part, by single words, many of which end inite;—that the other classes, or subclasses,Oxides,Pyrites,Glances, andBlendes, have commonly been so termed; asRed Iron Oxide,Iron Pyrites,Zinc Blende;—while pure metals have usually had the adjectivenativeprefixed, asNative Gold,Native Copper. These obvious features of the current names appear to afford us a basis for a systematic nomenclature. The Salts and Spars might all have the wordsaltorsparincluded in their name, asNatron Salt,Glauber Salt,Mock Salt;Calc Spar,Bitter Spar, (Carbonate of Lime and Magnesia),Fluor Spar,Phosphor Spar(Phosphate of Lime),Heavy Spar,Celestine Spar(Sulphate of Strontian),Chromic Lead Spar(Chromate of Lead); theSilicidesmight all have the name constructed so as to be a single word ending inite, asChabasite(Chabasie),Natrolite(Mesotype),Sommite(Nepheline),Pistacite(Epidote); from this rule might be excepted theGems, asTopaz,Emerald,Corundum, which might retain their old names. The Oxides, Pyrites, Glances, and Blendes, might be so termed; thus we should haveTungstic Iron Oxide(usually called Tungstate of Iron),Arsenical Iron Pyrites(Mispickel),Tetrahedral Copper Glance(Fahlerz),Quicksilver Blende(Cinnabar), and the metals might be termednative, asNative Copper,Native Silver.Such a nomenclature would take in a very large344proportion of commonly received appellations, especially if we were to select among the synonyms, as is proposed above in the case ofGlauber Salt,Bitter Spar,Sommite,Pistacite,Natrolite. Hence it might be adopted without serious inconvenience. It would make the name convey information respecting the place of the mineral in the system; and by imposing this condition, would limit the extreme caprice, both as to origin and form, which has hitherto been indulged in imposing mineralogical names.The principle of a mineralogical nomenclature determined by the place of the species in the system, has been recognized by Mr. Beudant as well as Mr. Mohs. The former writer has proposed that we should sayCarbonate Calcaire,Carbonate Witherite,Sulphate Couperose,Silicate Stilbite,Silicate Chabasie, and so on. But these are names in which the part added for the sake of the system, is not incorporated with the common name, and would hardly make its way into common use.We have already noticed Mr. Mohs’s designations for two of the Systems of Crystallization, thePyramidaland thePrismatic, as not characteristic. If it were thought advisable to reform such a defect, this might be done by calling them theSquare Pyramidaland theOblong Prismatic, which terms, while they expressed the real distinction of the systems, would be intelligible at once to those acquainted with the Mohsian terminology.I will mention another suggestion respecting the introduction of an improvement in scientific language. The termDepolarizationwas introduced, because it was believed that the effect of certain crystals, when polarized light was incident upon them in certain positions, was to destroy the peculiarity which polarization had produced. But it is now well known, that the effect of the second crystal in general is to divide the polarized ray of light into two rays, polarized in different planes. Still this effect is often spoken of asDepolarization, no better term having been yet devised. I have proposed and used the termDipolarization,345which well expresses what takes place, and so nearly resembles the elder word, that it must sound familiar to those already acquainted with writings on this subject.I may mention one term in another department of literature which it appears desirable to reform in the same manner. The theory of the Fine Arts, or the philosophy which speculates concerning what is beautiful in painting, sculpture or architecture, and other arts, often requires to be spoken of in a single word. Baumgarten and other German writers have termed this province of speculationÆsthetics;αἰσθάνεσθαι,to perceive, being a word which appeared to them fit to designate the perception of beauty in particular. Since, however,æstheticswould naturally denote the Doctrine of Perception in general; since this Doctrine requires a name; since the termæstheticshas actually been applied to it by other German writers (as Kant); and since the essential point in the philosophy now spoken of is that it attends to Beauty;—it appears desirable to change this name. In pursuance of the maxim now before us, I should propose the termCallæsthetics, or rather (in agreement with what was said inpage338)Callæsthetic, the science of the perception of beauty.
58Phil. Bot.231.
Terminations are well adapted to express definite systematic relations, such as those of chemistry, but they must be employed with a due regard to all the bearings of the system. Davy proposed to denote the combinations of other substances with chlorine by peculiar terminations; usinganefor the smallest proportion of Chlorine, andaneafor the larger, as Cuprane, Cupranea. In this nomenclature, common salt would beSodane, and Chloride of Nitrogen would beAzotane. This suggestion never found favour. It was341objected that it was contrary to the Linnæan precept, that a specific name must not be united to a generic termination. But this was not putting the matter exactly on its right ground; for the rules of nomenclature of natural history do not apply to chemistry; and the Linnæan rule might with equal propriety have been adduced as a condemnation of such terms as Sulphurous, Sulphuric. But Davy’s terms were bad; for it does not appear that Chlorine enters, as Oxygen does, into so large a portion of chemical compounds, that its relations afford a key to their nature, and may properly be made an element in their names.
This resource, of terminations, has been abused, wherever it has been used wantonly, or without a definite significance in the variety. This is the case in M. Beudant’s Mineralogy. Among the names which he has given to new species, we find the following (besides many inite), Scolexerose, Opsimose, Exanthelose, &c.; Diacrase, Panabase, Neoplase; Neoclese; Rhodoise, Stibiconise, &c.; Marceline, Wilhelmine, &c.; Exitele, and many others. In addition to other objections which might be made to these names, their variety is a material defect: for to make this variety depend on caprice alone, as in those cases it does, is to throw away a resource of which chemical nomenclature may teach us the value.
AphorismXXII.
When alterations in technical terms become necessary, it is desirable that the new term should contain in its form some memorial of the old one.
Wehave excellent examples of the advantageous use of this maxim in Linnæus’s reform of botanical nomenclature. His innovations were very extensive, but they were still moderated as much as possible, and connected in many ways with the names of plants then in use. He has himself given several rules of nomenclature, which tend to establish this connexion of the342old and new in a reform. Thus he says, ‘Generic names which are current, and are not accompanied with harm to botany, should be tolerated59.’ ‘A passable generic name is not to be changed for another, though more apt60’. ‘New generic names are not to be framed so long as passable synonyms are at hand61.’ ‘A generic name of one genus, except it be superfluous, is not to be transferred to another genus, though it suit the other better62.’ ‘If a received genus requires to be divided into several, the name which before included the whole, shall be applied to the most common and familiar kind63.’ And though he rejects allgenericnames which have not a Greek or Latin root64, he is willing to make an exception in favour of those which from their form might be supposed to have such a root, though they are really borrowed from other languages, asThea, which is the Greek for goddess;Coffea, which might seem to come from a Greek word denoting silence (κωφός);Cheiranthus, which appears to mean hand-flower, but is really derived from the ArabicKeiri: and many others.
59Philosophia Botanica, Art. 242.
60Art. 246.
61Art. 247.
62Art. 249.
63Art. 249.
64Art. 232.
As we have already said, the attempt at a reformation of the nomenclature of Mineralogy made by Professor Mohs will probably not produce any permanent effect, on this account amongst others, that it has not been conducted in this temperate mode; the innovations bear too large a proportion to the whole of the names, and contain too little to remind us of the known appellations. Yet in some respects Professor Mohs has acted upon this maxim. Thus he has called one of his classesSpar, becauseFelsparbelongs to it. I shall venture to offer a few suggestions on this subject of Mineralogical Nomenclature.
It has already been remarked that the confusion and complexity which prevail in this subject render a reform very desirable. But it will be seen, from the reasons assigned under theNinthAphorism, that no permanent system of names can be looked for, till a343sound system of classification be established. The best mineralogical systems recently published, however, appear to converge to a common point; and certain classes have been formed which have both a natural-historical and a chemical significance. These Classes, according to Naumann, whose arrangement appears the best, are Hydrolytes, Haloids, Silicides, Oxides of Metals, Metals, Sulphurides (Pyrites, Glances, and Blendes), and Anthracides. Now we find;—that the Hydrolytes are all compounds, such as are commonly termedSalts;—that the Haloids are, many of them, already calledSpars, asCalc Spar,Heavy Spar,Iron Spar,Zinc Spar;—that theSilicides, the most numerous and difficult class, are denoted for the most part, by single words, many of which end inite;—that the other classes, or subclasses,Oxides,Pyrites,Glances, andBlendes, have commonly been so termed; asRed Iron Oxide,Iron Pyrites,Zinc Blende;—while pure metals have usually had the adjectivenativeprefixed, asNative Gold,Native Copper. These obvious features of the current names appear to afford us a basis for a systematic nomenclature. The Salts and Spars might all have the wordsaltorsparincluded in their name, asNatron Salt,Glauber Salt,Mock Salt;Calc Spar,Bitter Spar, (Carbonate of Lime and Magnesia),Fluor Spar,Phosphor Spar(Phosphate of Lime),Heavy Spar,Celestine Spar(Sulphate of Strontian),Chromic Lead Spar(Chromate of Lead); theSilicidesmight all have the name constructed so as to be a single word ending inite, asChabasite(Chabasie),Natrolite(Mesotype),Sommite(Nepheline),Pistacite(Epidote); from this rule might be excepted theGems, asTopaz,Emerald,Corundum, which might retain their old names. The Oxides, Pyrites, Glances, and Blendes, might be so termed; thus we should haveTungstic Iron Oxide(usually called Tungstate of Iron),Arsenical Iron Pyrites(Mispickel),Tetrahedral Copper Glance(Fahlerz),Quicksilver Blende(Cinnabar), and the metals might be termednative, asNative Copper,Native Silver.
Such a nomenclature would take in a very large344proportion of commonly received appellations, especially if we were to select among the synonyms, as is proposed above in the case ofGlauber Salt,Bitter Spar,Sommite,Pistacite,Natrolite. Hence it might be adopted without serious inconvenience. It would make the name convey information respecting the place of the mineral in the system; and by imposing this condition, would limit the extreme caprice, both as to origin and form, which has hitherto been indulged in imposing mineralogical names.
The principle of a mineralogical nomenclature determined by the place of the species in the system, has been recognized by Mr. Beudant as well as Mr. Mohs. The former writer has proposed that we should sayCarbonate Calcaire,Carbonate Witherite,Sulphate Couperose,Silicate Stilbite,Silicate Chabasie, and so on. But these are names in which the part added for the sake of the system, is not incorporated with the common name, and would hardly make its way into common use.
We have already noticed Mr. Mohs’s designations for two of the Systems of Crystallization, thePyramidaland thePrismatic, as not characteristic. If it were thought advisable to reform such a defect, this might be done by calling them theSquare Pyramidaland theOblong Prismatic, which terms, while they expressed the real distinction of the systems, would be intelligible at once to those acquainted with the Mohsian terminology.
I will mention another suggestion respecting the introduction of an improvement in scientific language. The termDepolarizationwas introduced, because it was believed that the effect of certain crystals, when polarized light was incident upon them in certain positions, was to destroy the peculiarity which polarization had produced. But it is now well known, that the effect of the second crystal in general is to divide the polarized ray of light into two rays, polarized in different planes. Still this effect is often spoken of asDepolarization, no better term having been yet devised. I have proposed and used the termDipolarization,345which well expresses what takes place, and so nearly resembles the elder word, that it must sound familiar to those already acquainted with writings on this subject.
I may mention one term in another department of literature which it appears desirable to reform in the same manner. The theory of the Fine Arts, or the philosophy which speculates concerning what is beautiful in painting, sculpture or architecture, and other arts, often requires to be spoken of in a single word. Baumgarten and other German writers have termed this province of speculationÆsthetics;αἰσθάνεσθαι,to perceive, being a word which appeared to them fit to designate the perception of beauty in particular. Since, however,æstheticswould naturally denote the Doctrine of Perception in general; since this Doctrine requires a name; since the termæstheticshas actually been applied to it by other German writers (as Kant); and since the essential point in the philosophy now spoken of is that it attends to Beauty;—it appears desirable to change this name. In pursuance of the maxim now before us, I should propose the termCallæsthetics, or rather (in agreement with what was said inpage338)Callæsthetic, the science of the perception of beauty.