I have stated that in Mineralogy we are still destitute of a good

nomenclature generally current. From what has now been said, it will

be seen that it may be very far from easy to supply this defect,

since we have, as yet, no generally received system of mineralogical

classification. Till we know what are really different species of

minerals, and in what larger groups these species can be arranged,

so as to have common properties, we shall never obtain a permanent

mineralogical nomenclature. Thus _Leucocyclite_ and _Tesselite_ are

minerals previously confounded with Apophyllite, which Sir John

Herschel and Sir David Brewster distinguished by those names, in

consequence of certain optical properties which they exhibit. But

are these properties definite distinctions? and are there any

external differences corresponding to them? If not, can we consider

them as separate species? and if not separate species, ought they to

have separate names? In like manner, we might ask if _Augite_ and

_Hornblende_ are really the same species, as Gustavus Rose has

maintained? if _Diallage_ and _Hypersthene_ are not definitely

distinguished, which has been asserted by Kobell? Till such

questions are settled, we cannot have a fixed nomenclature in

mineralogy. What appears the best course to follow in the present

state of the science, I shall consider when we come to speak of the

form of technical terms.

I may, however, notice here that the main Forms of systematic

nomenclature are two:--terms which are produced by combining words

of higher and lower generality, as the binary names, consisting of

the name of the genus and the species, generally employed by natural

historians since the time of Linnæus;--and terms in which some

relation of things is indicated by a change in the form of the word,

for example, an alteration of its termination, of which kind of

{290} nomenclature we have a conspicuous example in the modern

chemistry.

APHORISM X.

_New terms and changes of terms, which are not needed in order to

express truth, are to be avoided._

AS the Seventh Aphorism asserted that novelties in language may be

and ought to be introduced, when they aid the enunciation of truths,

we now declare that they are not admissible in any other case. New

terms and new systems of terms are not to be introduced, for

example, in virtue of their own neatness or symmetry, or other

merits, if there is no occasion for their use.

I may mention, as an old example of a superfluous attempt of this

kind, an occurrence in the history of Astronomy. In 1628 John Bayer

and Julius Schiller devised a _Cœlum Christianum_, in which the

common names of the planets, &c., were replaced by those of Adam,

Moses, and the Patriarchs. The twelve Signs became the twelve

Apostles, and the constellations became sacred places and things.

Peireskius, who had to pronounce upon the value of this proposal,

praised the piety of the inventors, but did not approve, he

said[28\4], the design of perverting and confounding whatever of

celestial information from the period of the earliest memory is

found in books.

[Note 28\4: Gassendi, _Vita Peireskii_, 300.]

Nor are slight anomalies in the existing language of science

sufficient ground for a change, if they do not seriously interfere

with the expression of our knowledge. Thus Linnæus says[29\4] that a

fair generic name is not to be exchanged for another though apter

one: and[30\4] if we separate an old genus into several, we must try

to find names for them among the synonyms which describe the old

genus. This maxim excludes the restoration of ancient names long

disused, no less than the needless invention of new ones. Linnæus

{291} lays down this rule[31\4]; and adds, that the botanists of the

sixteenth century well nigh ruined botany by their anxiety to

recover the ancient names of plants. In like manner Cuvier[32\4]

laments it as a misfortune, that he has had to introduce many new

names; and declares earnestly that he has taken great pains to

preserve those of his predecessors.

[Note 29\4: _Phil. Bot._ 246.]

[Note 30\4: _Ib._ 247.]

[Note 31\4: _Phil. Bot._ 248.]

[Note 32\4: _Règne Anim._ Pref. xvi.]

The great bulk which the Synonymy of botany and of mineralogy have

attained, shows us that this maxim has not been universally attended

to. In these cases, however, the multiplication of different names

for the same kind of object has arisen in general from ignorance of

the identity of it under different circumstances, or from the want

of a system which might assign to it its proper place. But there are

other instances, in which the multiplication of names has arisen not

from defect, but from excess, of the spirit of system. The love

which speculative men bear towards symmetry and completeness is

constantly at work, to make them create systems of classification

more regular and more perfect than can be verified by the facts: and

as good systems are closely connected with a good nomenclature,

systems thus erroneous and superfluous lead to a nomenclature which

is prejudicial to science. For although such a nomenclature is

finally expelled, when it is found not to aid us in expressing the

true laws of nature, it may obtain some temporary sway, during

which, and even afterwards, it may be a source of much confusion.

We have a conspicuous example of such a result in the geological

nomenclature of Werner and his school. Thus it was assumed, in

Werner's system, that his _First_, _Second_, and _Third Flötz

Limestone_, his _Old_ and _New Red Sandstone_, were universal

formations; and geologists looked upon it as their business to

detect these strata in other countries. Names were thus assigned to

the rocks of various parts of Europe, which created immense

perplexity before they were again ejected. The geological terms

which now prevail, for {292} instance, those of Smith, are for the

most part not systematic, but are borrowed from accidents, as

localities, or popular names; as _Oxford Clay_ and _Cornbrash_; and

hence they are not liable to be thrust out on a change of system. On

the other hand we do not find sufficient reason to accept the system

of names of strata proposed by Mr. Conybeare in the _Introduction to

the Geology of England and Wales_, according to which the

_Carboniferous Rocks_ are the _Medial Order_,--having above them the

_Supermedial Order_ (_New Red Sand_, _Oolites_ and _Chalk_), and

above these the _Superior Order_ (_Tertiary Rocks_); and

again,--having below, the _Submedial Order_ (the _Transition

Rocks_), and the _Inferior Order_ (_Mica Slate_, _Gneiss_,

_Granite_). For though these names have long been proposed, it does

not appear that they are useful in enunciating geological truths. We

may, it would seem, pronounce the same judgment respecting the

system of geological names proposed by M. Alexander Brongniart, in

his _Tableau des Terrains qui composent l'écorce du Globe_. He

divides these strata into nine classes, which he terms _Terrains

Alluviens_, _Lysiens_, _Pyrogenes_, _Clysmiens_, _Yzemiens_,

_Hemilysiens_, _Agalysiens_, _Plutoniques_, _Vulcaniques_. These

classes are again variously subdivided: thus the Terrains Yzemiens

are _Thalassiques_, _Pelagiques_, and _Abyssiques_; and the

Abyssiques are subdivided into _Lias_, _Keuper_, _Conchiliens_,

_Pœciliens_, _Peneens_, _Rudimentaires_, _Entritiques_, _Houillers_,

_Carbonifers_ and _Gres Rouge Ancien_. Scarcely any amount of new

truths would induce geologists to burthen themselves at once with

this enormous system of new names: but in fact, it is evident that

any portion of truth, which any author can have brought to light,

may be conveyed by means of a much simpler apparatus. Such a

nomenclature carries its condemnation on its own face.

Nearly the same may be said of the systematic nomenclature proposed

for mineralogy by Professor Mohs. Even if all his Genera be really

natural groups, (a doctrine which we can have no confidence in till

they are confirmed by the evidence of chemistry,) there is no {293}

necessity to make so great a change in the received names of

minerals. His proceeding in this respect, so different from the

temperance of Linnæus and Cuvier, has probably ensured a speedy

oblivion to this part of his system. In crystallography, on the

other hand, in which Mohs's improvements have been very valuable,

there are several terms introduced by him, as _rhombohedron_,

_scalenohedron_, _hemihedral_, _systems_ of crystallization, which

will probably be a permanent portion of the language of science.

I may remark, in general, that the only persons who succeed in

making great alterations in the language of science, are not those

who make names arbitrarily and as an exercise of ingenuity, but

those who have much new knowledge to communicate; so that the

vehicle is commended to general reception by the value of what it

contains. It is only eminent discoverers to whom the authority is

conceded of introducing a new system of names; just as it is only

the highest authority in the state which has the power of putting a

new coinage in circulation.

I will here quote some judicious remarks of Mr. Howard, which fall

partly under this Aphorism, and partly under some which follow. He

had proposed, as names for the kinds of clouds, the following:

_Cirrus_, _Cirrocumulus_, _Cirrostratus_, _Cumulostratus_,

_Cumulus_, _Nimbus_, _Stratus_. In an abridgment of his views, given

in the Supplement to the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, English names

were proposed as the equivalents of these; _Curlcloud_,

_Sondercloud_, _Wanecloud_, _Twaincloud_, _Stackencloud_,

_Raincloud_, _Fallcloud_. Upon these Mr. Howard observes: 'I mention

these, in order to have the opportunity of saying that I do not

adopt them. The names for the clouds which I deduced from the Latin,

are but seven in number, and very easy to remember. They were

intended as _arbitrary terms_ for the _structure_ of clouds, and the

meaning of them was carefully fixed by a definition. The observer

having once made himself master of this, was able to apply the term

with correctness, after a little experience, to the subject under

all its varieties of form, colour, or position. The {294} new names,

if meant to be another set of arbitrary terms, are superfluous; if

intended to convey in themselves an explanation in English, they

fail in this, by applying to some part or circumstance only of the

definition; the _whole_ of which must be kept in view to study the

subject with success. To take for an example the first of the

modifications. The term _cirrus_ very readily takes an abstract

meaning, equally applicable to the rectilinear as to the flexuous

forms of the subject. But the name of _curl-cloud_ will not, without

some violence to its _obvious sense_, acquire this more extensive

one: and will therefore be apt to mislead the reader rather than

further his progress. Others of these names are as devoid of a

meaning obvious to the English reader, as the Latin terms

themselves. But the principal objection to English or any other

local terms, remains to be stated. They take away from the

nomenclature its general advantage of constituting, as far as it

goes, an universal language, by means of which the intelligent of

every country may convey to each other their ideas without the

necessity of translation.'

I here adduce these as examples of the arguments against changing an

established nomenclature. As grounds of selecting a new one, they

may be taken into account hereafter.

APHORISM XI.

_Terms which imply theoretical views are admissible, as far as the

theory is proved._

IT is not unfrequently stated that the circumstances from which the

names employed in science borrow their meaning, ought to be facts

and not theories. But such a recommendation implies a belief that

facts are rigorously distinguished from theories and directly

opposed to them; which belief, we have repeatedly seen, is

unfounded. When theories are firmly established, they become facts;

and names founded on such theoretical views are unexceptionable. If

we speak of the _minor_ {295} _axis_ of Jupiter's _orbit_, or of his

_density_, or of _the angle of refraction_, or _the length of an

undulation_ of red light, we assume certain theories; but inasmuch

as the theories are now the inevitable interpretation of ascertained

facts, we can have no better terms to designate the conceptions thus

referred to. And hence the rule which we must follow is, not that

our terms must involve no theory, but that they imply the theory

only in that sense in which it is the interpretation of the facts.

For example, the term _polarization_ of light was objected to, as

involving a theory. Perhaps the term was at first suggested by

conceiving light to consist of particles having poles turned in a

particular manner. But among intelligent speculators, the notion of

polarization soon reduced itself to the simple conception of

opposite properties in opposite positions, which is a bare statement

of the fact: and the term being understood to have this meaning, is

a perfectly good term, and indeed the best which we can imagine for

designating what is intended.

I need hardly add the caution, that names involving theoretical

views not in accordance with facts are to be rejected. The following

instances exemplify both the positive and the negative application

of this maxim.

The distinction of _primary_ and _secondary_ rocks in geology was

founded upon a theory; namely, that those which do not contain any

organic remains were first deposited, and afterwards, those which

contain plants and animals. But this theory was insecure from the

first. The difficulty of making the separation which it implied, led

to the introduction of a class of _transition_ rocks. And the recent

researches of geologists lead them to the conclusion, that those

rocks which are termed _primary_, may be the newest, not the oldest,

productions of nature.

In order to avoid this incongruity, other terms have been proposed

as substitutes for these. Sir C. Lyell remarks[33\4], that granite,

gneiss, and the like, form a class {296} which should be designated

by a common name; which name should not be of chronological import.

He proposes _hypogene_, signifying 'nether-formed;' and thus he

adopts the theory that they have not assumed their present form and

structure at the surface, but determines nothing of the period when

they were produced.

[Note 33\4: _Princ. Geol._ iv. 386.]

These hypogene rocks, again, he divides into unstratified or

_plutonic_, and altered stratified, or _metamorphic_; the latter

term implying the hypothesis that the stratified rocks to which it

is applied have been altered, by the effect of fire or otherwise,

since they were deposited. That fossiliferous strata, in some cases

at least, have undergone such a change, is demonstrable from

facts[34\4].

[Note 34\4: _Elem. Geol._ p. 17.]

The modern nomenclature of chemistry implies the oxygen theory of

chemistry. Hence it has sometimes been objected to. Thus Davy, in

speaking of the Lavoisierian nomenclature, makes the following

remarks, which, however plausible they may sound, will be found to

be utterly erroneous[35\4]. 'Simplicity and precision ought to be

the characteristics of a scientific nomenclature: words should

signify _things_, or the _analogies_ of things, and not _opinions_.

. . . A substance in one age supposed to be simple, in another is

proved to be compound, and _vice versâ_. A theoretical nomenclature

is liable to continual alterations: _oxygenated muriatic acid_ is as

improper a term as _dephlogisticated marine acid_. Every school

believes itself to be in the right: and if every school assumes to

itself the liberty of altering the names of chemical substances in

consequence of _new ideas_ of their composition, there can be no

permanency in the language of the science; it must always be

confused and uncertain. Bodies which are _similar_ to each other

should always be classed together; and there is a presumption that

their composition is _analogous_. _Metals_, _earths_, _alkalis_, are

appropriate names for the bodies they represent, and independent of

all speculation: whereas _oxides_, _sulphurets_, and _muriates_ are

terms founded upon opinions of the composition of bodies, some of

which have been already found erroneous. {297} The least dangerous

mode of giving a systematic form to a language seems to be to

signify the analogies of substances by some common sign affixed to

the beginning or the termination of the word. Thus as the metals

have been distinguished by a termination in _um_, as _aurum_, so

their calciform or oxidated state might have been denoted by a

termination in _a_, as _aura_: and no progress, however great, in

the science could render it necessary that such a mode of

appellation should be changed.'

[Note 35\4: _Elements of Chem. Phil._ p. 46.]

These remarks are founded upon distinctions which have no real

existence. We cannot separate _things_ from their _properties_, nor

can we consider their properties and analogies in any other way than

by having _opinions_ about them. By contrasting _analogies_ with

_opinions_, it might appear as if the author maintained that there

were certain analogies about which there was no room for erroneous

opinions. Yet the analogies of chemical compounds, are, in fact,

those points which have been most the subject of difference of

opinion, and on which the revolutions of theories have most changed

men's views. As an example of analogies which are still recognized

under alterations of theory, the writer gives the relation of a

metal to its oxide or calciform state. But this analogy of metallic

oxides, as Red Copper or Iron Ore, to Calx, or burnt lime, is very

far from being self-evident;--so far indeed, that the recognition of

the analogy was a great step in chemical _theory_. The terms which

he quotes, _oxygenated muriatic acid_ (and the same may be said of

_dephlogisticated marine acid_,) if improper, are so not because

they involve theory, but because they involve false theory;--not

because those who framed them did not endeavour to express

analogies, but because they expressed analogies about which they

were mistaken. Unconnected names, as _metals_, _earths_, _alkalis_,

are good as the _basis_ of a systematic nomenclature, but they are

not substitutes for such a nomenclature. A systematic nomenclature

is an instrument of great utility and power, as the modern history

of chemistry has shown. It would be highly unphilosophical to reject

{298} the use of such an instrument, because, in the course of the

revolutions of science, we may have to modify, or even to remodel it

altogether. Its utility is not by that means destroyed. It has

retained, transmitted, and enabled us to reason upon, the doctrines

of the earlier theory, so far as they are true; and when this theory

is absorbed into a more comprehensive one, (for this, and not its

refutation, is the end of a theory _so far as_ it is true,) the

nomenclature is easily translated into that which the new theory

introduces. We have seen, in the history of astronomy, how valuable

the theory of _epicycles_ was, in its time: the nomenclature of the

relations of a planet's orbit, which that theory introduced, was one

of Kepler's resources in discovering the _elliptical_ theory; and,

though now superseded, is still readily intelligible to astronomers.

This is not the place to discuss the reasons for the _form_ of

scientific terms; otherwise we might ask, in reference to the

objections to the Lavoisierian nomenclature, if such forms as

_aurum_ and _aura_ are good to represent the absence or presence of

oxygen, why such forms as _sulphite_ and _sulphate_ are not equally

good to represent the presence of what we may call a smaller or

larger dose of oxygen, so long as the oxygen theory is admitted in

its present form; and to indicate still the difference of the same

substances, if under any change of theory it should come to be

interpreted in a new manner.

But I do not now dwell upon such arguments, my object in this place

being to show that terms involving theory are not only allowable, if

understood so far as the theory is proved, but of great value, and

indeed of indispensable use, in science. The objection to them is

inconsistent with the objects of science. If, after all that has

been done in chemistry or any other science, we have arrived at no

solid knowledge, no permanent truth;--if all that we believe now may

be proved to be false to-morrow;--then indeed our opinions and

theories are corruptible elements, on which it would be unwise to

rest any thing important, and which we might wish to exclude, even

from our names. But if {299} our knowledge has no more security than

this, we can find no reason why we should wish at all to have names

of things, since the names are needed mainly that we may reason upon

and increase our knowledge such as it is. If we are condemned to

endless alternations of varying opinions, then, no doubt, our

theoretical terms may be a source of confusion; but then, where

would be the advantage of their being otherwise? what would be the

value of words which should express in a more precise manner

opinions equally fleeting? It will perhaps be said, our terms must

express facts, not theories: but of this distinction so applied we

have repeatedly shown the futility. Theories firmly established are

facts. Is it not a fact that the rusting of iron arises from the

metal combining with the oxygen of the atmosphere? Is it not a fact

that a combination of oxygen and hydrogen produces water? That our

terms should express _such_ facts, is precisely what we are here

inculcating.

Our examination of the history of science has led us to a view very

different from that which represents it as consisting in the

succession of hostile opinions. It is, on the contrary, a progress,

in which each step is recognized and employed in the succeeding one.

Every theory, so far as it is true, (and all that have prevailed

extensively and long, contain a large portion of truth,) is taken up

into the theory which succeeds and seems to expel it. All the

narrower inductions of the first are included in the more

comprehensive generalizations of the second. And this is performed

mainly by means of such terms as we are now considering;--terms

involving the previous theory. It is by means of such terms, that

the truths at first ascertained become so familiar and manageable,

that they can be employed as elementary facts in the formation of

higher inductions.

These principles must be applied also, though with great caution,

and in a temperate manner, even to descriptive language. Thus the

mode of describing the forms of crystals adopted by Werner and Romé

de l'Isle was to consider an original form, from which other forms

are derived by _truncations_ of the edges and the {300} angles.

Haüy's method of describing the same forms, was to consider them as

built up of rows of small solids, the angles being determined by the

_decrements_ of these rows. Both these methods of description

involve hypothetical views; and the last was intended to rest on a

true physical theory of the constitution of crystals. Both

hypotheses are doubtful or false: yet both these methods are good as

modes of description: nor is Haüy's terminology vitiated, if we

suppose (as in fact we must suppose in many instances,) that

crystalline bodies are not really made up of such small solids. The

mode of describing an octahedron of fluor spar, as derived from the

cube, by decrements of one row on all the edges, would still be

proper and useful as a description, whatever judgment we should form

of the material structure of the body. But then, we must consider

the solids which are thus introduced into the description as merely

hypothetical geometrical forms, serving to determine the angles of

the faces. It is in this way alone that Haüy's nomenclature can now

be retained.

In like manner we may admit theoretical views into the descriptive

phraseology of other parts of Natural History: and the theoretical

terms will replace the obvious images, in proportion as the theory

is generally accepted and familiarly applied. For example, in

speaking of the Honeysuckle, we may say that the upper leaves are

_perfoliate_, meaning that a single round leaf is perforated by the

stalk, or threaded upon it. Here is an image which sufficiently

conveys the notion of the form. But it is now generally recognized

that this apparent single leaf is, in fact, two opposite leaves

joined together at their bases. If this were doubted, it may be

proved by comparing the upper leaves with the lower, which are

really separate and opposite. Hence the term _connate_ is applied to

these conjoined opposite leaves, implying that they grow together;

or they are called _connato-perfoliate_. Again; formerly the corolla

was called _monopetalous_ or _polypetalous_, as it consisted of one

part or of several: but it is now agreed among botanists that those

corollas which {301} appear to consist of a single part, are, in

fact, composed of several soldered together; hence the term

_gamopetalous_ is now employed (by De Candolle and his followers)

instead of monopetalous[36\4].

[Note 36\4: On this subject, see Illiger, _Versuch einer

Systematischen Vollständigen Terminologie für das Thierreich und

Pflanzenreich_ (1810). De Candolle, _Théorie Élémentaire de la

Botanique_.]

In this way the language of Natural History not only expresses, but

inevitably implies, general laws of nature; and words are thus

fitted to aid the progress of knowledge in this, as in other

provinces of science.

APHORISM XII.

_If terms are systematically good, they are not to be rejected

because they are etymologically inaccurate._

TERMS belonging to a system are defined, not by the meaning of their

radical words, but by their place in the system. That they should be

appropriate in their signification, aids the processes of

introducing and remembering them, and should therefore be carefully

attended to by those who invent and establish them; but this once

done, no objections founded upon their etymological import are of

any material weight. We find no inconvenience in the circumstance

that _geometry_ means the measuring of the earth, that the name

_porphyry_ is applied to many rocks which have no fiery spots, as

the word implies, and _oolite_ to strata which have no roelike

structure. In like manner, if the term _pœcilite_ were already

generally received, as the name of a certain group of strata, it

would be no valid ground for quarrelling with it, that this group

was not always variegated in colour, or that other groups were

equally variegated: although undoubtedly in _introducing_ such a

term, care should be taken to make it as distinctive as possible. It

often happens, as we have seen, that by the natural progress of

changes in language, a word is steadily confirmed in a sense quite

different from its etymological import. But though {302} we may

accept such instances, we must not wantonly attempt to imitate them.

I say, not wantonly: for if the progress of scientific

identification compel us to follow any class of objects into

circumstances where the derivation of the term is inapplicable, we

may still consider the term as an unmeaning sound, or rather an

historical symbol, expressing a certain member of our system. Thus

if, in following the course of the _mountain_ or _carboniferous_

limestone, we find that in Ireland it does not form mountains nor

contain coal, we should act unwisely in breaking down the

nomenclature in which our systematic relations are already

expressed, in order to gain, in a particular case, a propriety of

language which has no scientific value.

All attempts to act upon the maxim opposite to this, and to make our

scientific names properly descriptive of the objects, have failed

and must fail. For the marks which really distinguish the natural

classes of objects, are by no means obvious. The discovery of them

is one of the most important steps in science; and when they are

discovered, they are constantly liable to exceptions, because they

do not contain the essential differences of the classes. The natural

order _Umbellatæ_, in order to be a natural order, must contain some

plants which have not umbels, as _Eryngium_[37\4]. 'In such cases,'

said Linnæus, 'it is of small import what you call the order, if you

take a proper series of plants, and give it some name which is

clearly understood to apply to the plants you have associated.' 'I

have,' he adds, 'followed the rule of borrowing the name _à

fortiori_, from the principal feature.'

[Note 37\4: See _Hist. Ind. Sc._ b. xvi. c. iv. sect. 5.]

The distinction of crystals into systems according to the degree of

symmetry which obtains in them, has been explained elsewhere. Two of

these systems, of which the relation as to symmetry might be

expressed by saying that one is _square pyramidal_ and the other

_oblong pyramidal_, or the first _square prismatic_ and the second

_oblong prismatic_, are termed by Mohs, the first, _Pyramidal_, and

the second _Prismatic_. And it may {303} be doubted whether it is

worth while to invent other terms, though these are thus defective

in characteristic significance. As an example of a needless

rejection of old terms in virtue of a supposed impropriety in their

meaning, I may mention the attempt made in the last edition of

Haüy's _Mineralogy_, to substitute _autopside_ and _heteropside_ for

_metallic_ and _unmetallic_. It was supposed to be proved that all

bodies have a metal for their basis; and hence it was wished to

avoid the term _unmetallic_. But the words _metallic_ and

_unmetallic_ may mean that minerals _seem_ metallic and unmetallic,

just as well as if they contained the element _opside_ to imply this

seeming. The old names express all that the new express, and with

more simplicity, and therefore should not be disturbed.

The maxim on which we are now insisting, that we are not to be too

scrupulous about the etymology of scientific terms, may, at first

sight, appear to be at variance with our Fourth Aphorism, that words

used technically are to retain their common meaning as far as

possible. But it must be recollected, that in the Fourth Aphorism we

spoke of _common_ words _appropriated_ as technical terms; we here

speak of words _constructed_ for scientific purposes. And although

it is, perhaps, impossible to draw a broad line between these two

classes of terms, still the rule of propriety may be stated thus: In

technical terms, deviations from the usual meaning of words are bad

in proportion as the words are more familiar in our own language.

Thus we may apply the term _Cirrus_ to a cloud composed of

filaments, even if these filaments are straight; but to call such a

cloud a _Curl cloud_ would be much more harsh.

Since the names of things, and of classes of things, when

constructed so as to involve a description, are constantly liable to

become bad, the natural classes shifting away from the descriptive

marks thus prematurely and casually adopted, I venture to lay down

the following maxim. {304}

APHORISM XIII.

_The fundamental terms of a system of Nomenclature may be

conveniently borrowed from casual or arbitrary circumstances._

FOR instance, the names of plants, of minerals, and of geological

strata, may be taken from the places where they occur conspicuously

or in a distinct form; as _Parietaria_, _Parnassia_, _Chalcedony_,

_Arragonite_, _Silurian_ system, _Purbeck_ limestone. These names

may be considered as at first supplying standards of reference; for

in order to ascertain whether any rock be _Purbeck_ limestone, we

might compare it with the rocks in the Isle of Purbeck. But this

reference to a local standard is of authority only till the place of

the object in the system, and its distinctive marks, are

ascertained. It would not vitiate the above names, if it were found

that the _Parnassia_ does not grow on Parnassus; that _Chalcedony_

is not found in Chalcedon; or even that _Arragonite_ no longer

occurs in Arragon; for it is now firmly established as a mineral

species. Even in geology such a reference is arbitrary, and may be

superseded, or at least modified, by a more systematic

determination. _Alpine_ limestone is no longer accepted as a

satisfactory designation of a rock, now that we know the limestone

of the Alps to be of various ages.

Again, names of persons, either casually connected with the object,

or arbitrarily applied to it, may be employed as designations. This

has been done most copiously in botany, as for example, _Nicotiana_,

_Dahlia_, _Fuchsia_, _Jungermannia_, _Lonicera_. And Linnæus has

laid down rules for restricting this mode of perpetuating the memory

of men, in the names of plants. Those generic names, he says[38\4],

which have been constructed to preserve the memory of persons who

have deserved well of botany, are to be religiously retained. This,

he adds, is the sole and supreme reward of the botanist's labours,

and must be carefully guarded and {305} scrupulously bestowed, as an

encouragement and an honour. Still more arbitrary are the terms

borrowed from the names of the gods and goddesses, heroes and

heroines of antiquity, to designate new genera in those departments

of natural history in which so many have been discovered in recent

times as to weary out all attempts at descriptive nomenclature.

Cuvier has countenanced this method. 'I have had to frame many new

names of genera and sub-genera,' he says[39\4], 'for the sub-genera

which I have established were so numerous and various, that the

memory is not satisfied with numerical indications. These I have

chosen either so as to indicate some character, or among the usual

denominations, which I have latinized, or finally, after the example

of Linnæus, among the names of mythology, which are in general

agreeable to the ear, and which are far from being exhausted.'

[Note 38\4: _Phil. Bot._ 241.]

[Note 39\4: _Règne An._ p. 16.]

This mode of framing names from the names of persons to whom it was

intended to do honour, has been employed also in the mathematical

and chemical sciences; but such names have rarely obtained any

permanence, except when they recorded an inventor or discoverer.

Some of the constellations, indeed, have retained such appellations,

as _Berenice's Hair_; and the new star which shone out in the time

of Cæsar, would probably have retained the name given to it, of the

_Julian Star_, if it had not disappeared again soon after. In the

map of the Moon, almost all the parts have had such names imposed

upon them by those who have constructed such maps, and these names

have very properly been retained. But the names of new planets and

satellites thus suggested have not been generally accepted; as the

_Medicean_ stars, the name employed by Galileo for the satellites of

Jupiter; the _Georgium Sidus_, the appellation proposed by Herschel

for Uranus when first discovered[40\4]; Ceres _Ferdinandea_, {306}

the name which Piazzi wished to impose on the small planet Ceres.

The names given to astronomical Tables by the astronomers who

constructed them have been most steadily adhered to, being indeed

names of books, and not of natural objects. Thus there were the

_Ilchanic_, the _Alphonsine_, the _Rudolphine_, the _Carolinian_

Tables. Comets which have been ascertained to be periodical, have

very properly had assigned to them the name of the person who

established this point; and of these we have thus, _Halley's_,

_Encke's Comet_, and _Biela's_ or _Gambart's Comet_.

[Note 40\4: In this case, the name _Uranus_, selected with a view to

symmetry according to the mythological order of descent of the

persons (_Uranus_, _Saturn_, _Jupiter_, _Mars_) was adopted by

astronomers in general, though not proposed or sanctioned by the

discoverer of the new planet. In the cases of the smaller planets,

_Ceres_, _Pallas_, _Juno_, and _Vesta_, the names were given either

by the discoverer, or with his sanction. Following this rule, Bessel

gave the name of _Astræa_ to a new planet discovered in the same

region by Mr. Hencke, as mentioned in the additions to book vii. of

the _History_ (2nd Ed.). Following the same rule, and adhering as

much as possible to mythological connexion, the astronomers of

Europe have with the sanction of M. Le Verrier, given the name of

_Neptune_ to the planet revolving beyond Uranus, and discovered in

consequence of his announcement of its probable existence, which had

been inferred by Mr. Adams and him (calculating in ignorance of each

other's purpose) from the perturbations of Uranus; as I have stated

in the Additions to the Third Edition of the _History_.]

In the case of discoveries in science or inventions of apparatus,

the name of the inventor is very properly employed as the

designation. Thus we have the _Torricellian_ Vacuum, the _Voltaic_

Pile, _Fahrenheit's_ Thermometer. And in the same manner with regard

to laws of nature, we have _Kepler's_ Laws, _Boyle_ or _Mariotte's_

law of the elasticity of air, _Huyghens's_ law of double refraction,

_Newton's_ scale of colours. _Descartes'_ law of refraction is an

unjust appellation; for the discovery of the law of sines was made

by Snell. In deductive mathematics, where the invention of a theorem

is generally a more definite step than an induction, this mode of

designation is more common, as _Demoivre's_ Theorem, _Maclaurin's_

Theorem, _Lagrange's_ Theorem, _Eulerian_ Integrals.

In the _History of Science_[41\4] I have remarked that in the

discovery of what is termed galvanism, Volta's {307} office was of a

higher and more philosophical kind than that of Galvani; and I have,

on this account, urged the propriety of employing the term

_voltaic_, rather than _galvanic_ electricity. I may add that the

electricity of the common machine is often placed in contrast with

this, and appears to require an express name. Mr. Faraday calls it

_common_ or _machine_ electricity; but I think that _franklinic_

electricity would form a more natural correspondence with _voltaic_,

and would be well justified by Franklin's place in the history of

that part of the subject.

[Note 41\4: b. xiii. c. 1.]

APHORISM XIV.

_The Binary Method of Nomenclature_ (_Names by Genus and Species_) _is

the most convenient hitherto employed in Classification._

THE number of species in every province of Natural History is so

vast that we cannot distinguish them and record the distinctions

without some artifice. The known species of plants, for instance,

were 10,000 in the time of Linnæus, and are now probably 60,000. It

would be useless to endeavour to frame and employ separate names for

each of these species.

The division of the objects into a subordinated system of

classification enables us to introduce a Nomenclature which does not

require this enormous number of names. The artifice employed is, to

name a specimen by means of two (or it might be more) steps of the

successive division. Thus in Botany, each of the Genera has its

name, and the species are marked by the addition of some epithet to

the name of the genus. In this manner about 1,700 Generic Names,

with a moderate number of Specific Names, were found by Linnæus

sufficient to designate with precision all the species of vegetables

known at his time. And this _Binary Method_ of Nomenclature has been

found so convenient, that it has been universally adopted in every

other department of the Natural History of organized beings. {308}

Many other modes of Nomenclature have been tried, but no other has

at all taken root. Linnæus himself appears at first to have intended

marking each species by the Generic Name, accompanied by a

characteristic Descriptive Phrase; and to have proposed the

employment of a _Trivial_ Specific Name, as he termed it, only as a

method of occasional convenience. The use of these trivial names,

however, has become universal, as we have said; and is by many

persons considered the greatest improvement introduced at the

Linnæan reform.

APHORISM XV.

_The Maxims of Linnæus concerning the Names to be used in Botany_,

(Philosophia Botanica, Nomina. Sections 210 to 255) _are good

examples of Aphorisms on this subject._

BOTH Linnæus and other writers (as Adanson) have given many maxims

with a view of regulating the selection of generic and specific

names. The maxims of Linnæus were intended as much as possible to

exclude barbarism and confusion, and have, upon the whole, been

generally adopted.

These canons, and the sagacious modesty of great botanists, like

Robert Brown, in conforming to them, have kept the majority of good

botanists within salutary limits; though many of these canons were

objected to by the contemporaries of Linnæus (Adanson and

others[42\4]) as capricious and unnecessary restrictions.

[Note 42\4: Pref. cxxix. clxxii.]

Many of the names introduced by Linnæus certainly appear fanciful

enough. Thus he gives the name _Bauhinia_ to a plant which has

leaves in pairs, because the Bauhins were a pair of brothers.

_Banisteria_ is the name of a climbing plant in honour of Banister,

who travelled among mountains. But such names once established by

adequate authority lose all their inconvenience and easily become

permanent, and hence the reasonableness of one of the Linnæan

rules[43\4]:--

That as such a perpetuation of the names of persons

{309} by the names of plants is the only honour that botanists have

to bestow, it ought to be used with care and caution, and

religiously respected.

[Note 43\4: _Phil. Bot._ s. 239.]

[3rd ed. It may serve to show how sensitive botanists are to the

allusions contained in such names, that it has been charged against

Linnæus, as a proof of malignity towards Buffon, that he changed the

name of the genus _Buffonia_, established by Sauvages, into

_Bufonia_, which suggested a derivation from _Bufo_, a toad. It

appears to be proved that the spelling was not Linnæus's doing.]

Another Linnæan maxim is (Art. 219), that the generic name must be

fixed before we attempt to form a specific name; 'the latter without

the former is like the clapper without the bell.'

The name of the genus being fixed, the species may be marked (Art.

257) by adding to it 'a single word taken at will from any quarter;'

that is, it need not involve a description or any essential property

of the plant, but may be a casual or arbitrary appellation. Thus the

various species of _Hieracium_[44\4] are _Hieracium Alpinum_, _H.

Halleri_, _H. Pilosella_, _H. dubium_, _H. murorum_, &c., where we

see how different may be the kind of origin of the words.

[Note 44\4: Hooker, _Fl. Scot._ 228.]

Attempts have been made at various times to form the names of

species from those of genera in some more symmetrical manner. But

these have not been successful, nor are they likely to be so; and we

shall venture to propound an axiom in condemnation of such names.

APHORISM XVI.

_Numerical names in Classification are bad; and the same may be said

of other names of kinds, depending upon any fixed series of notes of

order._

WITH regard to numerical names of kinds, of species for instance,

the objections are of this nature. Besides that such names offer

nothing for the imagination to take hold of, new discoveries will

probably alter the {310} numeration, and make the names erroneous.

Thus, if we call the species of a genus 1, 2, 3, a new species

intermediate between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, &c. cannot be put in its

place without damaging the numbers.

The geological term _Trias_, lately introduced to designate the

group consisting of the _three_ members (Bunter Sandstein,

Muschelkalk, and Keuper) becomes improper if, as some geologists

hold, two of these members cannot be separated.

Objections resembling those which apply to numerical designations of

species, apply to other cases of fixed series: for instance, when it

has been proposed to mark the species by altering the termination of

the genus. Thus Adanson[45\4], denoting a genus by the name _Fonna_

(_Lychnidea_), conceived he might mark five of its species by

altering the last syllable, _Fonna_, _Fonna-e_, _Fonna-i_,

_Fonna-o_, _Fonna-u_; then others by _Fonna-ba_, _Fonna-ka_, and so

on. This would be liable to the same evils which have been noticed

as belonging to the numerical method[46\4].

[Note 45\4: Pref. clxxvi.]

[Note 46\4: In like manner the names assigned by Mr. Rickman to the

successive of styles of Gothic architecture in England,--_Early

English_, _Decorated_, and _Perpendicular_,--cannot be replaced by

numerical designations, _First Pointed_, _Second Pointed_, _Third

Pointed_. For--besides that he who first distinctly establishes

classes has the right of naming them, and that Mr. Rickman's names

are really appropriate and significant--these new names would

confound all meaning of language. We should not be able to divide

Early English, or Decorated, or Perpendicular into sub-styles;--for

who could talk of _First Second Pointed_ and _Second Second

Pointed_; and what should we call that pointed style--the

_Transition_ from the Norman--which precedes the _First Pointed_?]

APHORISM XVII.

_In any classificatory science names including more than two steps

of the classification may be employed if it be found convenient._

LINNÆUS, in his canons for botanical nomenclature (Art. 212), says

that the names of the class and the order are to be _mute_, while

the names of the Genus and Species are _sonorous_. And accordingly

the names {311} of plants (and the same is true of animals) have in

common practice been binary only, consisting of a generic and a

specific name. The class and the order have not been admitted to

form part of the appellation of the species. Indeed it is easy to

see that a name, which must be identical in so many instances as

that of an Order would be, would be felt as superfluous and

burthensome. Accordingly, Linnæus makes it one of his maxims[47\4],

that the name of the Class and Order must not be expressed but

understood, and hence, he says, Royen, who took _Lilium_ for the

name of a Class, rightly rejected this word as a generic name, and

substituted _Lirium_ with the Greek termination.

[Note 47\4: _Phil. Bot._ s. 215.]

Yet we must not too peremptorily assume such maxims as these to be

universal for all classificatory sciences. It is very possible that

it may be found advisable to use _three_ terms, that of Order,

Genus, and Species in designating minerals, as is done in Mohs's

nomenclature, for example, _Rhombohedral Calc Haloide_, _Paratomous

Hal Baryte_.

It is possible also that it may be found useful in the same science

(Mineralogy) to mark some of the steps of classification by the

termination. Thus it has been proposed to confine the termination

_ite_ to the Order _Silicides_ of Naumann, as Apophyll_ite_,

Stilb_ite_, Leuc_ite_, &c., and to use names of different form in

other orders, as Talc _Spar_ for Brennerite, Pyramidal Titanium

_Oxide_ for Octahedrite. Some such method appears to be the most

likely to give us a tolerable mineralogical nomenclature.

APHORISM XVIII.

_In forming a Terminology, words may be invented when necessary, but

they cannot be conveniently borrowed from casual or arbitrary

circumstances_[48\4].

[Note 48\4: I may also refer to _Hist. Sc. Id._ b. viii. c. ii. sec.

2, for some remarks on Terminology.]

IT will be recollected that Terminology is a language employed for

describing objects, Nomenclature, a body {312} of names of the

objects themselves. The _names_, as was stated in the last maxim,

may be arbitrary; but the _descriptive_ terms must be borrowed from

words of suitable meaning in the modern or the classical languages.

Thus the whole terminology which Linnæus introduced into botany, is

founded upon the received use of Latin words, although he defined

their meaning so as to make it precise when it was not so, according

to Aphorism V. But many of the terms were invented by him and other

botanists, as _Perianth_, _Nectary_, _Pericarp_; so many, indeed, as

to form, along with the others, a considerable language. Many of the

terms which are now become familiar were originally invented by

writers on botany. Thus the word _Petal_, for one division of the

corolla, was introduced by Fabius Columna. The term _Sepal_ was

devised by Necker to express each of the divisions of the calyx. And

up to the most recent times, new denominations of parts and

conditions of parts have been devised by botanists, when they found

them necessary, in order to mark important differences or

resemblances. Thus the general _Receptacle_ of the flower, as it is

termed by Linnæus, or _Torus_ by Salisbury, is continued into organs

which carry the stamina and pistil, or the pistil alone, or the

whole flower; this organ has hence been termed[49\4] _Gonophore_,

_Carpophore_, and _Anthophore_, in these cases.

[Note 49\4: De Candolle's _Th. El._ 405.]

In like manner when Cuvier had ascertained that the lower jaws of

Saurians consisted always of six pieces having definite relations of

form and position, he gave names to them, and termed them

respectively the _Dental_, the _Angular_, the _Coronoid_, the

_Articular_, the _Complementary_, and the _Opercular_ Bones.

In all these cases, the descriptive terms thus introduced have been

significant in their derivation. An attempt to circulate a perfectly

arbitrary word as a means of description would probably be

unsuccessful. We have, indeed, some examples approaching to

arbitrary designations, in the Wernerian names of colours, {313}

which are a part of the terminology of Natural History. Many of

these names are borrowed from natural resemblances, as _Auricula

purple_, _Apple green_, _Straw yellow_; but the names of others are

taken from casual occurrences, mostly, however, such as were already

recognized in common language, as _Prussian blue_, _Dutch orange_,

_King's yellow_.

The extension of arbitrary names in scientific terminology is by no

means to be encouraged. I may mention a case in which it was very

properly avoided. When Mr. Faraday's researches on Voltaic

electricity had led him to perceive the great impropriety of the

term _poles_, as applied to the apparatus, since the processes have

not reference to any opposed points, but to two opposite directions

of a path, he very suitably wished to substitute for the phrases

_positive pole_ and _negative pole_, two words ending in _ode_, from

ὅδος, a way. A person who did not see the value of our present

maxim, that descriptive terms should be descriptive in their origin,

might have proposed words perfectly arbitrary, as _Alphode_, and

_Betode_: or, if he wished to pay a tribute of respect to the

discoverers in this department of science, _Galvanode_ and

_Voltaode_, But such words would very justly have been rejected by

Mr. Faraday, and would hardly have obtained any general currency

among men of science. _Zincode_ and _Platinode_, terms derived from

the metal which, in one modification of the apparatus, forms what

was previously termed the pole, are to be avoided, because in their

origin too much is casual; and they are not a good basis for

derivative terms. The pole at which the zinc is, is the Anode or

Cathode, according as it is associated with different metals. Either

the _Zincode_ must sometimes mean the pole at which the Zinc is, and

at other times that at which the Zinc is not, or else we must have

as many names for poles as there are metals. _Anode_ and _Cathode_,

the terms which Mr. Faraday adopted, were free from these

objections; for they refer to a natural standard of the direction of

the voltaic current, in a manner which, though perhaps not obvious

at first sight, is easily understood and {314} retained. _An_ode and

_Cath_ode, the _rising_ and the _setting_ way, are the directions

which correspond to east and west in that voltaic current to which

we must ascribe terrestrial magnetism. And with these words it was

easy to connect _Anïon_ and _Cathïon_, to designate the opposite

elements which are separated and liberated at the two _Electrodes_.

APHORISM XIX.

_The meaning of Technical Terms must be fixed by convention, not by

casual reference to the ordinary meaning of words._

IN fixing the meaning of the Technical Terms which form the

Terminology of any science, at least of the descriptive Terms, we

necessarily fix, at the same time, the perceptions and notions which

the Terms are to convey to a hearer. What do we mean by

_apple-green_ or _French grey_? It might, perhaps, be supposed that,

in the first example, the term _apple_, referring to so familiar an

object, sufficiently suggests the colour intended. But it may easily

be seen that this is not true; for apples are of many different hues

of green, and it is only by a conventional selection that we can

appropriate the term to one special shade. When this appropriation

is once made, the term refers to the sensation, and not to the parts

of this term; for these enter into the compound merely as a help to

the memory, whether the suggestion be a natural connexion as in

'apple-green,' or a casual one as in 'French grey.' In order to

derive due advantage from technical terms of this kind, they must be

associated _immediately_ with the perception to which they belong;

and not connected with it through the vague usages of common

language. The memory must retain the sensation; and the technical

word must be understood as directly as the most familiar word, and

more distinctly. When we find such terms as _tin-white_ or

_pinchbeck-brown_, the metallic colour so denoted ought to start up

in our memory without delay or search. {315}

This, which it is most important to recollect with respect to the

simpler properties of bodies, as colour and form, is no less true

with respect to more compound notions. In all cases the term is

fixed to a peculiar meaning by convention; and the student, in order

to use the word, must be completely familiar with the convention, so

that he has no need to frame conjectures from the word itself. Such

conjectures would always be insecure, and often erroneous. Thus the

term _papilionaceous_, applied to a flower, is employed to indicate,

not only a resemblance to a butterfly, but a resemblance arising

from five petals of a certain peculiar shape and arrangement; and

even if the resemblance to a butterfly were much stronger than it is

in such cases, yet if it were produced in a different way, as, for

example, by one petal, or two only, instead of a 'standard,' two

'wings,' and a 'keel' consisting of two parts more or less united

into one, we should no longer be justified in speaking of it as a

'papilionaceous' flower.

The formation of an exact and extensive descriptive language for

botany has been executed with a degree of skill and felicity, which,

before it was attained, could hardly have been dreamt of as

attainable. Every part of a plant has been named; and the form of

every part, even the most minute, has had a large assemblage of

descriptive terms appropriated to it, by means of which the botanist

can convey and receive knowledge of form and structure, as exactly

as if each minute part were presented to him vastly magnified. This

acquisition was part of the Linnæan Reform, of which we have spoken

in the _History_. 'Tournefort,' says De Candolle[50\4], 'appears to

have been the first who really perceived the utility of fixing the

sense of terms in such a way as always to employ the same word in

the same sense, and always to express the same idea by the same

word; but it was Linnæus who really created and fixed this botanical

language, and this is his fairest claim to glory, for by this

fixation of language he has shed clearness and precision over all

parts of the science.'

[Note 50\4: _Théor. Élém._ p. 327.]

{316} It is not necessary here to give any detailed account of the

terms of botany. The fundamental ones have been gradually

introduced, as the parts of plants were more carefully and minutely

examined. Thus the flower was successively distinguished into the

_calyx_, the _corolla_, the _stamens_, and the _pistils_: the

sections of the corolla were termed _petals_ by Columna; those of

the calyx were called _sepals_ by Necker[51\4]. Sometimes terms of

greater generality were devised; as _perianth_ to include the calyx

and corolla, whether one or both of these were present[52\4];

_pericarp_ for the part inclosing the grain, of whatever kind it be,

fruit, nut, pod, &c. And it may easily be imagined that descriptive

terms may, by definition and combination, become very numerous and

distinct. Thus leaves may be called _pinnatifid_[53\4],

_pinnnatipartite_, _pinnatisect_, _pinnatilobate_, _palmatifid_,

_palmatipartite_, &c., and each of these words designates different

combinations of the modes and extent of the divisions of the leaf

with the divisions of its outline. In some cases arbitrary numerical

relations are introduced into the definition: thus a leaf is called

_bilobate_[54\4] when it is divided into two parts by a notch; but

if the notch go to the middle of its length, it is _bifid_; if it go

near the base of the leaf, it is _bipartite_; if to the base, it is

_bisect_. Thus, too, a pod of a cruciferous plant is a

_silica_[55\4] if it be four times as long as it is broad, but if it

be shorter than this it is a _silicula_. Such terms being

established, the form of the very complex leaf or frond of a fern is

exactly conveyed, for example, by the following phrase: 'fronds

rigid pinnate, pinnæ recurved subunilateral pinnatifid, the segments

linear undivided or bifid spinuloso-serrate[56\4].'

[Note 51\4: De Candolle, 329.]

[Note 52\4: For this Erhart and De Candolle use _Perigone_.]

[Note 53\4: De Candolle, 318.]

[Note 54\4: _Ibid._ 493.]

[Note 55\4: _Ibid._ 422.]

[Note 56\4: Hooker, _Brit. Flo._ p. 450. _Hymenophyllum Wilsoni_,

Scottish filmy fern, abundant in the highlands of Scotland and about

Killarney.]

Other characters, as well as form, are conveyed with the like

precision: Colour by means of a classified scale of colours, as we

have seen in speaking of the Measures {317} of Secondary Qualities;

to which, however, we must add, that the naturalist employs

arbitrary names, (such as we have already quoted,) and not mere

numerical exponents, to indicate a certain number of selected

colours. This was done with most precision by Werner, and his scale

of colours is still the most usual standard of naturalists. Werner

also introduced a more exact terminology with regard to other

characters which are important in mineralogy, as lustre, hardness.

But Mohs improved upon this step by giving a numerical scale of

hardness, in which _talc_ is 1, _gypsum_, 2, _calc spar_ 3, and so

on, as we have already explained in the History of Mineralogy. Some

properties, as specific gravity, by their definition give at once a

numerical measure; and others, as crystalline form, require a very

considerable array of mathematical calculation and reasoning, to

point out their relations and gradations. In all cases the features

of likeness in the objects must be rightly apprehended, in order to

their being expressed by a distinct terminology. Thus no terms could

describe crystals for any purpose of natural history, till it was

discovered that in a class of minerals the proportion of the faces

might vary, while the angle remained the same. Nor could crystals be

described so as to distinguish species, till it was found that the

derived and primitive forms are connected by very simple relations

of space and number. The discovery of the mode in which characters

must be apprehended so that they may be considered as _fixed_ for a

class, is an important step in the progress of each branch of

Natural History; and hence we have had, in the History of Mineralogy

and Botany, to distinguish as important and eminent persons those

who made such discoveries, Romé de Lisle and Haüy, Cæsalpinus and

Gesner.

By the continued progress of that knowledge of minerals, plants, and

other natural objects, in which such persons made the most distinct

and marked steps, but which has been constantly advancing in a more

gradual and imperceptible manner, the most important and essential

features of similarity and dissimilarity in such objects have been

selected, arranged, and fitted with {318} names; and we have thus in

such departments, systems of Terminology which fix our attention

upon the resemblances which it is proper to consider, and enable us

to convey them in words.

The following Aphorisms respect the Form of Technical Terms.

By the _Form_ of terms, I mean their philological conditions; as,

for example, from what languages they may be borrowed, by what modes

of inflexion they must be compounded, how their derivatives are to

be formed, and the like. In this, as in other parts of the subject,

I shall not lay down a system of rules, but shall propose a few

maxims.

APHORISM XX.

_The two main conditions of the Form of technical terms are, that

they must be generally intelligible, and susceptible of such

grammatical relations as their scientific use requires._

THESE conditions may at first appear somewhat vague, but it will be

found that they are as definite as we could make them, without

injuriously restricting ourselves. It will appear, moreover, that

they have an important bearing upon most of the questions respecting

the form of the words which come before us; and that if we can

succeed in any case in reconciling the two conditions, we obtain

terms which are practically good, whatever objections may be urged

against them from other considerations.

1. The former condition, for instance, bears upon the question

whether scientific terms are to be taken from the learned languages,

Greek and Latin, or from our own. And the latter condition very

materially affects the same question, since in English we have

scarcely any power of inflecting our words; and therefore must have

recourse to Greek or Latin in order to obtain terms which admit of

grammatical modification. If we were content with the term _Heat_,

to express the _science_ of heat, still it would be a bad technical

term, for we cannot derive from it an adjective like {319}

_thermotical_. If _bed_ or _layer_ were an equally good term with

_stratum_, we must still retain the latter, in order that we may use

the derivative _Stratification_, for which the English words cannot

produce an equivalent substitute. We may retain the words _lime_ and

_flint_, but their adjectives for scientific purposes are not _limy_

and _flinty_, but _calcareous_ and _siliceous_; and hence we are

able to form a compound, as _calcareo-siliceous_, which we could not

do with indigenous words. We might fix the phrases _bent back_ and

_broken_ to mean (of optical rays) that they are reflected and

refracted; but then we should have no means of speaking of the

angles of _Reflection_ and _Refraction_, of the _Refractive_

Indices, and the like.

In like manner, so long as anatomists described certain parts of a

vertebra as _vertebral laminæ_, or _vertebral plates_, they had no

adjective whereby to signify the properties of these parts; the term

_Neurapophysis_, given to them by Mr. Owen, supplies the

corresponding expression _neurapophysial_. So again, the term

_Basisphenoid_, employed by the same anatomist, is better than

_basilar_ or _basial process of the sphenoid_, because it gives us

the adjective _basisphenoidal_. And the like remark applies to other

changes recently proposed in the names of portions of the skeleton.

Thus one of the advantages of going to the Greek and Latin languages

for the origin of our scientific terms is, that in this way we

obtain words which admit of the formation of adjectives and abstract

terms, and of composition, and of other inflexions. Another

advantage of such an origin is, that such terms, if well selected,

are readily understood over the whole lettered world. For this

reason, the descriptive language of science, of botany for instance,

has been, for the most part, taken from the Latin; many of the terms

of the mathematical and chemical sciences have been derived from the

Greek; and when occasion occurs to construct a new term, it is

generally to that language that recourse is had. The advantage of

such terms is, as has already been intimated, that they constitute

an universal language, by means of which {320} cultivated persons in

every country may convey to each other their ideas without the need

of translation.

On the other hand, the advantage of indigenous terms is, that so far

as the language extends, they are intelligible much more clearly and

vividly than those borrowed from any other source, as well as more

easily manageable in the construction of sentences. In the

descriptive language of botany, for example, in an English work, the

terms _drooping_, _nodding_, _one-sided_, _twining_, _straggling_,

appear better than _cernuous_, _nutant_, _secund_, _volubile_,

_divaricate_. For though the latter terms may by habit become as

intelligible as the former, they cannot become more so to any

readers; and to most English readers they will give a far less

distinct impression.

2. Since the advantage of indigenous over learned terms, or the

contrary, depends upon the balance of the capacity of inflexion and

composition on the one hand, against a ready and clear significance

on the other, it is evident that the employment of scientific terms

of the one class or of the other may very properly be extremely

different in different languages. The German possesses in a very

eminent degree that power of composition and derivation, which in

English can hardly be exercised at all, in a formal manner. Hence

German scientific writers use native terms to a far greater extent

than do our own authors. The descriptive terminology of botany, and

even the systematic nomenclature of chemistry, are represented by

the Germans by means of German roots and inflexions. Thus the

description of _Potentilla anserina_, in English botanists, is that

it has _Leaves interruptedly pinnate_, _serrate_, _silky_, _stem

creeping_, _stalks axilllar_, _one-flowered_. Here we have words of

Saxon and Latin origin mingled pretty equally. But the German

description is entirely Teutonic. _Die Blume in Achsel_; _die

Blätter unterbrochen gefiedert_, _die Blättchen scharf gesagt_, _die

Stämme kriechend_, _die Bluthenstiele einblumig_. We could imitate

this in our own language, by saying _brokenly-feathered_,

_sharp-sawed_; by using _threed_ for _ternate_, as the Germans

employ _gedreit_; by saying {321} _fingered-feathered_ for

_digitato-pinnate_, and the like. But the habit which we have, in

common as well as scientific language, of borrowing words from the

Latin for new cases, would make such usages seem very harsh and

pedantic.

We may add that, in consequence of these different practices in the

two languages, it is a common habit of the German reader to impose a

scientific definiteness upon a common word, such as our Fifth

Aphorism requires; whereas the English reader expects rather that a

word which is to have a technical sense shall be derived from the

learned languages. _Die Kelch_ and _die Blume_ (the cup and the

flower) easily assume the technical meaning of _calyx_ and

_corolla_; _die Griffel_ (the pencil) becomes _the pistil_; and a

name is easily found for the _pollen_, the _anthers_, and the

_stamens_, by calling them the dust, the dust-cases, and the

dust-threads (_der Staub_, _die Staub-beutel_, or _Staub-fächer_,

and _die Staub-fäden_), This was formerly done in English to a

greater extent than is now possible without confusion and pedantry.

Thus, in Grew's book on the _Anatomy of Plants_, the calyx is called

the _impalement_, and the sepals the _impalers_; the petals are

called the _leaves of the flower_; the stamens with their anthers

are the _seminiform attire_. But the English language, as to such

matters, is now less flexible than it was; partly in consequence of

its having adopted the Linnæan terminology almost entire, without

any endeavour to naturalize it. Any attempt at idiomatic description

would interfere with the scientific language now generally received

in this country. In Germany, on the other hand, those who first

wrote upon science in their own language imitated the Latin words

which they found in foreign writers, instead of transferring new

roots into their own language. Thus the _Numerator_ and

_Denominator_ of a fraction they call the _Namer_ and the _Counter_

(_Nenner_ and _Zähler_). This course they pursued even where the

expression was erroneous. Thus that portion of the intestines which

ancient anatomists called _Duodenum_, because they falsely estimated

its length at twelve inches, the {322} Germans also term

_Zwölffingerdarm_ (twelve-inch-gut), though this intestine in a

whale is twenty feet long, and in a frog not above twenty lines. As

another example of this process in German, we may take the word

_Muttersackbauchblatte_, the _uterine peritonæum_.

It is a remarkable evidence of this formative power of the German

language, that it should have been able to produce an imitation of

the systematic chemical nomenclature of the French school, so

complete, that it is used in Germany as familiarly as the original

system is in France and England. Thus Oxygen and Hydrogen are

_Sauerstoff_ and _**Wasserstoff_; Azote is _Stickstoff_ (suffocating

matter); Sulphuric and Sulphurous Acid are _Schwefel-säure_ and

_Schwefelichte-säure_. The Sulphate and Sulphite of Baryta, and

Sulphuret of Baryum, are _Schwefel-säure Baryterde_,

_Schwefelichte-säure Baryterde_, and _Schwefel-baryum_. Carbonate of

Iron is _Kohlen-säures Eisenoxydul_; and we may observe that, in

such cases, the German name is much more agreeable to analogy than

the English one; for the Protoxide of Iron, (_Eisenoxydul_,) and not

the Iron itself, is the base of the salt. And the German language

has not only thus imitated the established nomenclature of

chemistry, but has shown itself capable of supplying new forms to

meet the demands which the progress of theory occasions. Thus the

Hydracids are _Wasserstoff-säuren_; and of these, the Hydriodic Acid

is _Iodwasserstoff-säure_, and so of the rest. In like manner, the

translator of Berzelius has found German names for the sulpho-salts

of that chemist; thus he has _Wasserstoffschwefliges

Schewefellithium_, which would be (if we were to adopt his

theoretical view) hydro-sulphuret of sulphuret of lithium: and a

like nomenclature for all other similar cases.

3. In English we have no power of imitating this process, and must

take our technical phrases from some more flexible language, and

generally from the Latin or Greek. We are indeed so much accustomed

to do this, that except a word has its origin in one of these

languages, it hardly seems to us a technical {323} term; and thus by

employing indigenous terms, even descriptive ones, we may, perhaps,

lose in precision more than we gain in the vividness of the

impression. Perhaps it may be better to say _cuneate_, _lunate_,

_hastate_, _sagittate_, _reniform_, than _wedge-shaped_,

_crescent-shaped_, _halbert-headed_, _arrow-headed_,

_kidney-shaped_. _Ringent_ and _personate_ are better than any

English words which we could substitute for them; _labiate_ is more

precise than _lipped_ would readily become. _Urceolate_,

_trochlear_, are more compact than _pitcher-shaped_,

_pulley-shaped_; and _infundibuliform_, _hypocrateriform_, though

long words, are not more inconvenient than _funnel-shaped_ and

_salver-shaped_. In the same way it is better to speak (with Dr.

Prichard[57\4],) of _repent_ and _progressive_ animals, than of

_creeping_ and progressive: the two Latin terms make a better pair

of correlatives.

[Note 57\4: _Researches_, p. 69.]

4. But wherever we may draw the line between the proper use of

English and Latin terms in descriptive phraseology, we shall find it

advisable to borrow almost all other technical terms from the

learned languages. We have seen this in considering the new terms

introduced into various sciences in virtue of our Ninth Maxim. We

may add, as further examples, the names of the various animals of

which a knowledge has been acquired from the remains of them which

exist in various strata, and which have been reconstructed by Cuvier

and his successors. Such are the _Palæotherium_, the

_Anoplotherium_, the _Megatherium_, the _Dinotherium_, the

_Chirotherium_, the _Megalichthys_, the _Mastodon_, the

_Ichthyosaurus_, the _Plesiosaurus_, the _Pterodactylus_. To these

others are every year added; as, for instance, very recently, the

_Toxodon_, _Zeuglodon_, and _Phascolotherium_ of Mr. Owen, and the

_Thylacotherium_ of M. Valenciennes. Still more recently the terms

_Glyptodon_, _Mylodon_, _Dicynodon_, _Paloplotherium_,

_Rhynchosaurus_, have been added by Mr. Owen to designate fossil

animals newly determined by him. {324}

The names of species, as well as of genera, are thus formed from the

Greek: as the Plesiosaurus _dolichodeirus_ (long-necked),

Ichthyosaurus _platyodon_ (broad-toothed), the Irish elk, termed

Cervus _megaceros_ (large-horned). But the descriptive specific

names are also taken from the Latin, as Plesiosaurus _brevirostris_,

_longirostris_, _crassirostris_; besides which there are arbitrary

specific names, which we do not here consider.

These names being all constructed at a period when naturalists were

familiar with an artificial system, the standard language of which

is Latin, have not been taken from modern language. But the names of

living animals, and even of their classes, long ago formed in the

common language of men, have been in part adopted in the systems of

naturalists, agreeably to Aphorism Third. Hence the language of

systems in natural history is mixed of ancient and modern languages.

Thus Cuvier's divisions of the vertebrated animals are _Mammifères_

(Latin), _Oiseaux_, _Reptiles_, _Poissons_; _Bimanes_,

_Quadrumanes_, _Carnassières_, _Rongeurs_, _Pachydermes_ (Greek),

_Ruminans_ (Latin), _Cétacés_ (Latin). In the subordinate divisions

the distribution being more novel, the names are less idiomatic:

thus the kinds of Reptiles are _Cheloniens_, _Sauriens_,

_Ophidiens_, _Batraciens_, all which are of Greek origin. In like

manner. Fish are divided into _Chondropterygiens_,

_Malacopterygiens_, _Acanthopterygiens_. The unvertebrated animals

are _Mollusques_, _Animaux articulés_, and _Animaux rayonnés_; and

the Mollusques are divided into six classes, chiefly according to

the position or form of their foot; namely, _Cephalopodes_,

_Pteropodes_, _Gasteropodes_, _Acephales_, _Brachiopodes_,

_Cirrhopodes_.

In transferring these terms into English, when the term is new in

French as well as English, we have little difficulty; for we may

take nearly the same liberties in English which are taken in French;

and hence we may say _mammifers_ (rather _mammals_), _cetaceans_ or

_cetaces_, _batracians_ (rather _batrachians_), using the words as

substantives. But in other cases we must go back to the Latin: thus

we say _radiate_ {325} animals, or _radiata_ (rather _radials_), for

_rayonnés_. These changes, however, rather refer to another

Aphorism.

(Mr. Kirby has proposed _radiary_, _radiaries_, for _radiata_.)

5. When new Mineral Species have been established in recent times,

they have generally had arbitrary names assigned to them, derived

from some person or places. In some instances, however, descriptive

names have been selected; and then these have been generally taken

from the Greek, as _Augite_, _Stilbite_, _Diaspore_, _Dichroite_,

_Dioptase_. Several of these Greek names imposed by Haüy, refer to

some circumstances, often fancifully selected, in his view of the

crystallization of the substance, as _Epidote_, _Peridote_,

_Pleonast_. Similar terms of Greek origin have been introduced by

others, as _Orthite_, _Anorthite_, _Periklin_. Greek names founded

on casual circumstances are less to be commended. Berzelius has

termed a mineral _Eschynite_ from αἰσχυνὴ, _shame_, because it is,

he conceives, a shame for chemists not to have separated its

elements more distinctly than they did at first.

6. In Botany, the old names of genera of Greek origin are very

numerous, and many of them are descriptive, as _Glycyrhiza_ (γλυκὺς

and ῥιζα, sweet root) liquorice, _Rhododendron_ (rose-tree),

_Hæmatoxylon_ (bloody wood), _Chrysocoma_ (golden hair),

_Alopecurus_ (fox-tail), and many more. In like manner there are

names which derive a descriptive significance from the Latin, either

adjectives, as _Impatiens_, _Gloriosa_, _Sagittaria_, or

substantives irregularly formed, as _Tussilago_ (à tussis

domatione), _Urtica_ (ab urendo tactu), _Salsola_ (à salsedine). But

these, though good names when they are established by tradition, are

hardly to be imitated in naming new plants. In most instances, when

this is to be done, arbitrary or local names have been selected, as

_Strelitzia_.

7. In Chemistry, new substances have of late had names assigned them

from Greek roots, as _Iodine_, from its violet colour, _Chlorine_

from its green colour. In like manner fluorine has by the French

chemists been called _Phthor_, from its destructive properties. So

the {326} new metals, _Chrome_, _Rhodium_, _Iridium_, _Osmium_, had

names of Greek derivation descriptive of their properties. Some such

terms, however, were borrowed from localities, as _Strontia_,

_Yttria_, the names of new earths. Others have a mixed origin, as

_Pyrogallic_, _Pyroacetic_, and _Pyroligneous_ Spirit. In some cases

the derivation has been extravagantly capricious. Thus in the

process for making Pyrogallic Acid, a certain substance is left

behind, from which M. Braconnot extracted an acid which he called

_Ellagic_ Acid, framing the root of the name by reading the word

_Galle_ backwards.

The new laws which the study of Electro-chemistry brought into view,

required a new terminology to express their conditions: and in this

case, as we have observed in speaking of the Twelfth Maxim,

arbitrary words are less suitable. Mr. Faraday very properly

borrowed from the Greek his terms _Electrolyte_, _Electrode_,

_Anode_, _Cathode_, _Anïon_, _Cathïon_, _Dielectric_. In the

mechanico-chemical and mechanical sciences, however, new terms are

less copiously required than in the sciences of classification, and

when they are needed, they are generally determined by analogy from

existing terms. _Thermo-electricity_ and _Electro-dynamics_ were

terms which very naturally offered themselves; Nobili's

_thermo-multiplier_, Snow Harris's _unit-jar_, were almost equally

obvious names. In such cases, it is generally possible to construct

terms both compendious and descriptive, without introducing any new

radical words.

8. The subject of Crystallography has inevitably given rise to many

new terms, since it brings under our notice a great number of new

relations of a very definite but very complex form. Haüy attempted

to find names for all the leading varieties of crystals, and for

this purpose introduced a great number of new terms, founded on

various analogies and allusions. Thus the forms of calc-spar are

termed by him _primitive_, _equiaxe_, _inverse_, _metastatique_,

_contrastante_, _imitable_, _birhomboidale_, _prismatique_,

_apophane_, _uniternaire_, _bisunitaire_, _dodécaèdre_,

_contractée_, _dilatée_, _sexduodecimale_, _bisalterne_,

_binoternaire_, and many others. The {327} want of uniformity in the

origin and scheme of these denominations would be no valid objection

to them, if any general truth could be expressed by means of them:

but the fact is, that there is no definite distinction of these

forms. They pass into each other by insensible gradations, and the

optical and physical properties which they possess are common to all

of them. And as a mere enunciation of laws of form, this terminology

is insufficient. Thus it does not at all convey the relation between

the _bisalterne_ and the _binoternaire_, the former being a

combination of the _metastatique_ with the _prismatique_, the

latter, of the _metastatique_ with the _contrastante_: again, the

_contrastante_, the _mixte_, the _cuboide_, the _contractée_, the

_dilatée_, all contain faces generated by a common law, the index

being respectively altered so as to be in these cases, 3, 3/2, 4/5,

9/4, 5/9; and this, which is the most important geometrical relation

of these forms, is not at all recorded or indicated by the

nomenclature. The fact is, that it is probably impossible, the

subject of crystallography having become so complex as it now is, to

devise a system of names which shall express the relations of form.

Numerical symbols, such as those of Weiss or Naumann, or Professor

Miller, are the proper ways of expressing these relations, and are

the only good crystallographic terminology for cases in detail.

The terms used in expressing crystallographic laws have been for the

most part taken from the Greek by all writers except some of the

Germans. These, we have already stated, have constructed terms in

their own language, as _zwei-und-ein gliedrig_, and the like.

In Optics we have some new terms connected with crystalline laws, as

_uniaxal_ and _biaxal_ crystals, _optical axes_, which offered

themselves without any effort on the part of the discoverers. In the

whole history of the undulatory theory, very few innovations in

language were found necessary, except to fix the sense of a few

phrases, as _plane-polarized_ light in opposition to

_circularly-polarized_, and the like.

This is still more the case in Mechanics, Astronomy, {328} and pure

mathematics. In these sciences, several of the primary stages of

generalization being already passed over, when any new steps are

made, we have before us some analogy by which we may frame our new

terms. Thus when the _plane of maximum areas_ was discovered, it had

not some new arbitrary denomination assigned it, but the name which

obviously described it was fixed as a technical name.

The result of this survey of the scientific terms of recent

formation seems to be this;--that indigenous terms may be employed

in the descriptions of facts and phenomena as they at first present

themselves; and in the first induction from these; but that when we

come to generalize and theorize, terms borrowed from the learned

languages are more readily fixed and made definite, and are also

more easily connected with derivatives. Our native terms are more

impressive, and at first more intelligible; but they may wander from

their scientific meaning, and are capable of little inflexion. Words

of classical origin are precise to the careful student, and capable

of expressing, by their inflexions, the relations of general ideas;

but they are unintelligible, even to the learned man, without

express definition, and convey instruction only through an

artificial and rare habit of thought.

Since in the balance between words of domestic and of foreign origin

so much depends upon the possibility of inflexion and derivation, I

shall consider a little more closely what are the limits and

considerations which we have to take into account in reference to

that subject.

APHORISM XXI.

_In the composition and inflexion of technical terms, philological

analogies are to be preserved if possible, but modified according to

scientific convenience._

IN the language employed or proposed by writers upon subjects of

science, many combinations and forms of derivation occur, which

would be rejected and condemned by those who are careful of the

purity and {329} correctness of language. Such anomalies are to be

avoided as much as possible; but it is impossible to escape them

altogether, if we are to have a scientific language which has any

chance of being received into general use. It is better to admit

compounds which are not philologically correct, than to invent many

new words, all strange to the readers for whom they are intended:

and in writing on science in our own language, it is not possible to

avoid making additions to the vocabulary of common life; since

science requires exact names for many things which common language

has not named. And although these new names should, as much as

possible, be constructed in conformity with the analogies of the

language, such extensions of analogy can hardly sound, to the

grammarian's ear, otherwise than as solecisms. But, as our maxim

indicates, the analogy of science is of more weight with us than the

analogy of language: and although anomalies in our phraseology

should be avoided as much as possible, innovations must be permitted

wherever a scientific language, easy to acquire, and convenient to

use, is unattainable without them.

I shall proceed to mention some of the transgressions of strict

philological rules, and some of the extensions of grammatical forms,

which the above conditions appear to render necessary.

1. The combination of different languages in the derivation of

words, though to be avoided in general, is in some cases admissible.

Such words are condemned by Quintilian and other grammarians, under

the name of hybrids, or things of a mixed race; as _biclinium_ from

_bis_ and κλίνη; _epitogium_, from ἐπὶ and _toga_. Nor are such

terms to be unnecessarily introduced in science. Whenever a

homogeneous word can be formed and adopted with the same ease and

convenience as a hybrid, it is to be preferred. Hence we must have

_ichthyology_, not _piscology_, _entomology_, not _insectology_,

_insectivorous_, not _insectophagous_. In like manner, it would be

better to say _unoculus_ than _monoculus_, though the latter has the

sanction of Linnæus, who was a purist in such matters. {330} Dr.

Turner, in his _Chemistry_, speaks of _protoxides_ and _binoxides_,

which combination violates the rule for making the materials of our

terms as homogeneous as possible; _protoxide_ and _deutoxide_ would

be preferable, both on this and on other accounts.

Yet this rule admits of exceptions. _Mineralogy_, with its Greek

termination, has for its root _minera_, a medieval Latin word of

Teutonic origin, and is preferable to _Oryctology_. _Terminology_

appears to be better than _Glossology_: which according to its

derivation would be rather the science of language in general than

of technical terms; and _Horology_, from ὅρος, a term, would not be

immediately intelligible, even to Greek scholars; and is already

employed to indicate the science which treats of horologes, or

time-pieces.

Indeed, the English reader is become quite familiar with the

termination _ology_, the names of a large number of branches of

science and learning having that form. This termination is at

present rather apprehended as a formative affix in our own language,

indicating a science, than as an element borrowed from foreign

language. Hence, when it is difficult or impossible to find a Greek

term which clearly designates the subject of a science, it is

allowable to employ some other, as in _Tidology_, the doctrine of

the Tides.

The same remark applies to some other Greek elements of scientific

words: they are so familiar to us that in composition they are

almost used as part of our own language. This naturalization has

taken place very decidedly in the element _arch_, (ἀρχὸς a leader,)

as we see in _archbishop_, _archduke_. It is effected in a great

degree for the preposition _anti_: thus we speak of _anti-slavery_

societies, _anti-reformers_, _anti-bilious_, or _anti-acid_

medicines, without being conscious of any anomaly. The same is the

case with the Latin preposition _præ_ or _pre_, as appears from such

words as _pre-engage_, _pre-arrange_, _pre-judge_, _pre-paid_; and

in some measure with _pro_, for in colloquial language we speak of

_pro-catholics_ and _anti-catholics_. Also the preposition _ante_ is

similarly used, as _ante-nicene_ fathers. The preposition _co_,

abbreviated from _con_, and {331} implying things to be simultaneous

or connected, is firmly established as part of the language, as we

see in _coexist_, _coheir_, _coordinate_; hence I have called those

lines _cotidal_ lines which pass through places where the high water

of the tide occurs simultaneously.