2. As in the course of the mixture by which our language has been

formed, we have thus lost all habitual consciousness of the

difference of its ingredients, (Greek, Latin, Norman-French, and

Anglo-Saxon): we have also ceased to confine to each ingredient the

mode of grammatical inflexion which originally belonged to it. Thus

the termination _ive_ belongs peculiarly to Latin adjectives, yet we

say _sportive_, _talkative_. In like manner, _able_ is added to

words which are not Latin, as _eatable_, _drinkable_, _pitiable_,

_enviable_. Also the termination _al_ and _ical_ are used with

various roots, as _loyal_, _royal_, _farcical_, _whimsical_; hence

we may make the adjective _tidal_ from _tide_. This ending, _al_, is

also added to abstract terms in _ion_, as _occasional_,

_provisional_, _intentional_, _national_; hence we may, if

necessary, use such words as _educational_, _terminational_. The

ending _ic_ appears to be suited to proper names, as _Pindaric_,

_Socratic_, _Platonic_; hence it may be used when scientific words

are derived from proper names, as _Voltaic_ or _Galvanic_

electricity: to which I have proposed to add _Franklinic_.

In adopting scientific adjectives from the Latin, we have not much

room for hesitation; for, in such cases, the habits of derivation

from that language into our own are very constant; _ivus_ becomes

_ive_, as _decursive_; _inus_ becomes _ine_, as in _ferine_; _atus_

becomes _ate_, as _hastate_; and _us_ often becomes _ous_, as

_rufous_; _aris_ becomes _ary_, as _axillary_; _ens_ becomes _ent_,

as _ringent_. And in adopting into our language, as scientific

terms, words which in another language, the French for instance,

have a Latin origin familiar to us, we cannot do better than form

them as if they were derived directly from the Latin. Hence the

French adjectives _cétacé_, _crustacé_, _testacé_, may become either

_cetaceous_, _crustaceous_, _testaceous_, according to the analogy

of _farinaceous_, _predaceous_, or else _cetacean_, _crustacean_,

{332} _testacean_, imitating the form of _patrician_. Since, as I

shall soon have to notice, we require substantives as well as

adjectives from these words, we must, at least for that use, take

the forms last suggested.

In pursuance of the same remark, _rongeur_ becomes _rodent_; and

_edenté_ would become _edentate_, but that this word is rejected on

another account: the adjectives _bimane_ and _quadrumane_ are

_bimanous_ and _quadrumanous_.

3. There is not much difficulty in thus forming adjectives: but the

purposes of Natural History require that we should have substantives

corresponding to these adjectives; and these cannot be obtained

without some extension of the analogies of our language. We cannot

in general use adjectives or participles as singular substantives.

_The happy_ or _the doomed_ would, according to good English usage,

signify those who are happy and those who are doomed in the plural.

Hence we could not speak of a particular scaled animal as _the

squamate_, and still less could we call any such animal _a

squamate_, or speak of _squamates_ in the plural. Some of the forms

of our adjectives, however, do admit of this substantive use. Thus

we talk of _Europeans_, _plebeians_, _republicans_; of _divines_ and

_masculines_; of the _ultramontanes_; of _mordants_ and

_brilliants_; of _abstergents_ and _emollients_; of _mercenaries_

and _tributaries_; of _animals_, _mammals_, and _officials_; of

_dissuasives_ and _motives_. We cannot generally use in this way

adjectives in _ous_, nor in _ate_ (though _reprobates_ is an

exception), nor English participles, nor adjectives in which there

is no termination imitating the Latin, as _happy_, _good_. Hence, if

we have, for purposes of science, to convert adjectives into

substantives, we ought to follow the form of examples like these, in

which it has already appeared in fact, that such usage, though an

innovation at first, may ultimately become a received part of the

language.

By attention to this rule we may judge what expressions to select in

cases where substantives are needed. I will take as an example the

division of the mammalian animals into Orders. These Orders, {333}

according to Cuvier, are _Bimanes_, _Quadrumanes_, _Carnassiers_,

_Rongeurs_, _Edentés_, _Ruminants_, _Pachydermes_, _Cétacés_; and of

these, _Bimanes_, _Quadrumanes_, _Rodents_, _Ruminants_,

_Pachyderms_ are admissible as English substantives on the grounds

just stated. _Cetaceous_ could not be used substantively; but

_Cetacean_ in such a usage is sufficiently countenanced by such

cases as we have mentioned, _patrician_, &c.; hence we adopt this

form. We have no English word equivalent to the French

_Carnassiers_: the English translator of Cuvier has not provided

English words for his technical terms; but has formed a Latin word,

_Carnaria_, to represent the French terms. From this we might

readily form _Carnaries_; but it appears much better to take the

Linnæan name _Feræ_ as our root, from which we may take _Ferine_,

substantive as well as adjective; and hence we call this order

_Ferines_. The word for which it is most difficult to provide a

proper representation is _Edenté_, _Edentata_: for, as we have said,

it would be very harsh to speak of the order as the _Edentates_; and

if we were to abbreviate the word into _edent_, we should suggest a

false analogy with _rodent_, for as _rodent_ is _quod rodit_, that

which gnaws, _edent_ would be _quod edit_, that which eats. And even

if we were to take _edent_ as a substantive, we could hardly use it

as an adjective: we should still have to say, for example, the

_edentate_ form of head. For these reasons it appears best to alter

the form of the word, and to call the Order the _Edentals_, which is

quite allowable, both as adjective and substantive.

[An objection might be made to this term, both in its Latin, French

and English form: namely, that the natural group to which it is

applied includes many species, both existing and extinct, well

provided with teeth. Thus the armadillo is remarkable for the number

of its teeth; the megatherium, for their complex structure. But the

analogy of scientific language readily permits us to fix, upon the

word _edentata_, a special meaning, implying the absence of one

particular kind of teeth, namely, incisive teeth. Linnæus called the

equivalent order _Bruta_. We could not {334} apply in this case the

term _Brutes_; for common language has already attached to the word

a wider meaning, too fixedly for scientific use to trifle with it.]

There are several other words in _ate_ about which there is the same

difficulty in providing substantive forms. Are we to speak of

_Vertebrates_? or would it not be better, in agreement with what has

been said above, to call these _Vertebrals_, and the opposite class

_Invertebrals_?

There are similar difficulties with regard to the names of

subordinate portions of zoological classification; thus the Ferines

are divided by Cuvier into _Cheiroptéres_, _Insectivores_,

_Carnivores_; and these latter into _Plantigrades_, _Digitigrades_,

_Amphibies_, _Marsupiaux_. There is not any great harshness in

naturalizing these substantives as _Chiropters_, _Insectivores_,

_Carnivores_, _Plantigrades_, _Digitigrades_, _Amphibians_, and

_Marsupials_. These words _Carnivores_ and _Insectivores_ are

better, because of more familiar origin, than Greek terms; otherwise

we might, if necessary, speak of _Zoophagans_ and _Entomophagans_.

It is only with certain familiar adjectival terminations, as _ous_

and _ate_, that there is a difficulty in using the word as

substantive. When this can be avoided, we readily accept the new

word, as _Pachyderms_, and in like manner _Mollusks_.

If we examine the names of the Orders of Birds, we find that they

are in Latin, _Predatores_ or _Accipitres_, _Passeres_, _Scansores_,

_Rasores_ or _Gallinæ_, _Grallatores_, _Palmipedes_ and _Anseres_:

Cuvier's Orders are, _Oiseaux de Proie_, _Passereaux_, _Grimpeurs_,

_Gallinacés_, _Échassiers_, _Palmipedes_. These may be englished

conveniently as _Predators_, _Passerines_, _Scansors_,

_Gallinaceans_, (rather than _Rasors_,) _Grallators_, _Palmipedans_,

[or rather _Palmipeds_, like _Bipeds_]. _Scansors_, _Grallators_,

and _Rasors_, are better, as technical terms, than _Climbers_,

_Waders,_ and _Scratchers_. We might venture to anglicize the

terminations of the names which Cuvier gives to the divisions of

these Orders: thus the Predators are the _Diurnals_ and the

_Nocturnals_; the Passerines are the _Dentirostres_, the

_Fissirostres_, the {335} _Conirostres_, the _Tenuirostres_, and the

_Syndactyls_: the word _lustre_ showing that the former termination

is allowable. The Scansors are not sub-divided, nor are the

Gallinaceans. The Grallators are _Pressirostres_, _Cultrirostres_,

_Macrodactyls_. The Palmipeds are the _Plungers_, the _Longipens_,

the _Totipalmes_ and the _Lamellirostres_.

The next class of Vertebrals is the _Reptiles_, and these are either

_Chelonians_, _Saurians_, _Ophidians_, or _Batrachians_. Cuvier

writes _Batraciens_, but we prefer the spelling to which the Greek

word directs us.

The last or lowest class is the _Fishes_, in which province Cuvier has

himself been the great systematist, and has therefore had to devise

many new terms. Many of these are of Greek or Latin origin, and can

be anglicized by the analogies already pointed out, as

_Chondropterygians_, _Malacopterygians_, _Lophobranchs_,

_Plectognaths_, _Gymnodonts_, _Scleroderms_. _Discoboles_ and

_Apodes_ may be English as well as French. There are other cases in

which the author has formed the names of Families, either by forming

a word in _ides_ from the name of a genus, as _Gadoides_,

_Gobiöides_, or by gallicizing the Latin name of the genus, as

_Salmones_ from _Salmo_, _Clupes_ from _Clupea_, _Ésoces_ from

_Esox_, _Cyprins_ from _Cyprinus_. In these cases Agassiz's

favourite form of names for families of fishes has led English

writers to use the words _Gadoids_, _Gobioids_, _Salmonoids_,

_Clupeoids_, _Lucioids_ (for _Ésoces_), _Cyprinoids_, &c. There is a

taint of hybridism in this termination, but it is attended with this

advantage, that it has begun to be characteristic of the

nomenclature of family groups in the class _Pisces_. One of the

orders of fishes, co-ordinate with the Chondropterygians and the

Lophobranchs, is termed _Osseux_ by Cuvier. It appears hardly worth

while to invent a substantive word for this, when _Bony Fishes_ is

so simple a phrase, and may readily be understood as a technical

name of a systematic order.

The Mollusks are the next Class; and these are divided into

_Cephallopods_, _Gasteropods_, and the like. The Gasteropods are

_Nudibranchs_, _Inferobranchs_, {336} _Tectibranchs,_

_Pectinibranchs_, _Scutibranchs_, and _Cyclobranchs_. In framing

most of these terms Cuvier has made hybrids by a combination of a

Latin word with _branchiæ_ which is the Greek name for the gills of

a fish; and has thus avoided loading the memory with words of an

origin not obvious to most naturalists, as terms derived from the

Greek would have been. Another division of the Gasteropods is

_Pulmonés_, which we must make _Pulmonians_. In like manner the

subdivisions of the Pectinibranchs are the _Trochoidans_ and

_Buccinoidans_, (_Trochoïdes_, _Buccinoïdes)_. The _Acéphales_,

another order of Mollusks, may be _Acephals_ in English.

After these comes the third grand division, _Articulated Animals_,

and these are _Annelidans_, _Crustaceans,_ _Arachnidans_, and

_Insects_. I shall not dwell upon the names of these, as the form of

English words which is to be selected must be sufficiently obvious

from the preceding examples.

Finally, we have the fourth grand division of animals, the

_Rayonnés_, or _Radiata_; which, for reasons already given, we may

call _Radials_, or _Radiaries_. These are _Echinoderms_,

_Intestinals_, (or rather _Entozoans_,) _Acalephes_, and _Polyps_.

The Polyps, which are composite animals in which many gelatinous

individuals are connected so as to have a common life, have, in many

cases, a more solid framework belonging to the common part of the

animal. This framework, of which coral is a special example, is

termed in French _Polypier_; the word has been anglicized by the

word _polypary_, after the analogy of _aviary_ and _apiary_. Thus

Polyps are either _Polyps with Polyparies_ or _Naked Polyps_.

Any common kind of Polyps has usually in the English language been

called _Polypus_, the Greek termination being retained. This

termination in _us_, however, whether Latin or Greek, is to be

excluded from the English as much as possible, on account of the

embarrassment which it occasions in the formation of the plural. For

if we say _Polypi_ the word ceases to be English, while _Polypuses_

is harsh: and there is the additional inconvenience, that both these

forms would indicate the plural of individuals rather than of

classes. {337} If we were to say, 'The Corallines are a Family of

the _Polypuses with Polyparies_,' it would not at once occur to the

reader that the last three words formed a technical phrase.

This termination _us_ which must thus be excluded from the names of

families, may be admitted in the designation of genera; of animals,

as _Nautilus_, _Echinus_, _Hippopotamus_; and of plants, as

_Crocus_, _Asparagus_, _Narcissus_, _Acanthus_, _Ranunculus_,

_Fungus_. The same form occurs in other technical words, as _Fucus_,

_Mucus_, _Œsophagus_, _Hydrocephalus_, _Callus_, _Calculus_,

_Uterus_, _Fœtus_, _Radius_, _Focus_, _Apparatus_. It is, however,

advisable to retain this form only in cases where it is already

firmly established in the language; for a more genuine English form

is preferable. Hence we say, with Mr. Lyell, _Ichthyosaur_,

_Plesiosaur_, _Pterodactyl_. In like manner Mr. Owen anglicizes the

termination _erium_, and speaks of the _Anoplothere_ and

_Paleothere_.

Since the wants of science thus demand adjectives which can be used

also as substantive names of classes, this consideration may

sometimes serve to determine our selection of new terms. Thus Mr.

Lyell's names for the subdivisions of the tertiary strata,

_Miocene_, _Pliocene,_ can be used as substantives; but if such

words as _Mioneous_, _Plioneous_, had suggested themselves, they

must have been rejected, though of equivalent signification, as not

fulfilling this condition.

4. (_a._) Abstract substantives can easily be formed from

adjectives: from electric we have _electricity_; from galvanic,

_galvanism_; from organic, _organization_; _velocity_, _levity_,

_gravity_, are borrowed from Latin adjectives. _Caloric_ is

familiarly used for the matter of heat, though the form of the word

is not supported by any obvious analogy.

(_b._) It is intolerable to have words regularly formed, in

opposition to the analogy which their meaning offers; as when bodies

are said to have conduct_ibility_ or conduc_ibility_ with regard to

heat. The bodies are conduct_ive_, and their property is

conduct_ivity_.

(_c._) The terminations _ize_ (rather than _ise_), _ism_, and _ist_,

are applied to words of all origins: thus we have to {338}

_pulverize_, to _colonize_, _Witticism_, _Heathenism_, _Journalist_,

_Tobacconist_. Hence we may make such words when they are wanted. As

we cannot use _physician_ for a cultivator of physics, I have called

him a _Physicist_. We need very much a name to describe a cultivator

of science in general. I should incline to call him a _Scientist_.

Thus we might say, that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or

Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist.

(_d._) Connected with verbs in _ize_, we have abstract nouns in

_ization_, as _polarization_, _crystallization_. These it appears

proper to spell in English with _z_ rather than _s_; governing our

practice by the Greek verbal termination ίζω which we imitate. But

we must observe that verbs and substantives in _yse_, (_analyse_),

belong to a different analogy, giving an abstract noun in _ysis_ and

an adjective _ytic_ or _ytical_; (_analysis_, _analytic_,

_analytical_). Hence _electrolyse_ is more proper than

_electrolyze_.

(_e._) The names of many sciences end in _ics_ after the analogy of

_Mathematics_, _Metaphysics_; as _Optics_, _Mechanics_. But these,

in most other languages, as in our own formerly, have the singular

form _Optice_, _l'Optique_, _Optik_, _Optick_: and though we now write

_Optics_, we make such words of the singular number: 'Newton's

Opticks is an example.' As, however, this connexion in new words is

startling, as when we say 'Thermo-electrics is now much cultivated,'

it appears better to employ the singular form, after the analogy of

_Logic_ and _Rhetoric_, when we have words to construct. Hence we

may call the science of languages _Linguistic_, as it is called by

the best German writers, for instance, William Von Humboldt.

5. In the derivation of English from Latin or Greek words, the

changes of letters are to be governed by the rules which have

generally prevailed in such cases. The Greek οι and αι, the Latin

_oe_ and _ae_, are all converted into a simple _e_, as in _E_conomy,

Geod_e_sy, p_e_nal, C_e_sar. Hence, according to common usage, we

should write ph_e_nomena, not ph_æ_nomena, pal_e_ontology, not

pal_æ_ontology, mioc_e_ne not mioc_æ_ne, p_e_kilite not {339}

p_œ_kilite. But in order to keep more clearly in view the origin of

our terms, it may be allowable to deviate from these rules of

change, especially so long as the words are new and unfamiliar. Dr.

Buckland speaks of the _poikilitic_, not _pecilitic_, group of

strata: _palæontology_ is the spelling commonly adopted; and in

imitation of this I have written _palætiology_. The diphthong ει was

by the Latins changed into _i_, as in Arist_i_des; and hence this

has been the usual form in English. Some recent authors indeed (Mr.

Mitford for instance) write Arist_eid_es; but the former appears to

be the more legitimate. Hence we write m_i_ocene, pl_i_ocene, not

m_ei_ocene, pl_ei_ocene. The Greek υ becomes _y_, and ου becomes

_u_, in English as in Latin, as cr_y_stal, col_u_re. The consonants

κ and χ become _c_ and _ch_ according to common usage. Hence we

write _crystal_, not _chrystal_, batra_ch_ian, not batra_c_ian,

_c_ryolite, not _ch_ryolite. As, however, the letter _c_ before _e_

and _i_ differs from _k_, which is the sound we assign to the Greek

κ, it may be allowable to use _k_ in order to avoid this confusion.

Thus, as we have seen, poi_k_ilite has been used, as well as

pe_c_ilite. Even in common language some authors write s_k_eptic,

which appears to be better than s_c_eptic with our pronunciation,

and is preferred by Dr. Johnson. For the same reason, namely, to

avoid confusion in the pronunciation, and also, in order to keep in

view the connexion with _cathode_, the elements of an electrolyte

which go to the anode and cathode respectively may be termed the

anion and cat_h_ion; although the Greek would suggest catïon,

(κατίον).

6. The example of chemistry has shown that we have in the

terminations of words a resource of which great use may be made in

indicating the relations of certain classes of objects: as

sulphur_ous_ and sulphur_ic_ acids; sulph_ates_, sulph_ites_, and

sulph_urets_. Since the introduction of the artifice by the

Lavoisierian school, it has been extended to some new cases. The

Chlor_ine_, Fluor_ine_, Brom_ine_, Iod_ine_, had their names put

into that shape in consequence of their supposed analogy: and for

the same reason have been termed Chlore, {340} Phlore, Brome, Iode,

by French chemists. In like manner, the names of metals in their

Latin form have been made to end in _um_, as Osmium, Palladium; and

hence it is better to say Platin_um_, Molybden_um_, than Platin_a_,

Molybden_a_. It has been proposed to term the basis of Boracic acid

Bor_on_; and those who conceive that the basis of Silica has an

analogy with Boron have proposed to term it Silic_on_, while those

who look upon it as a metal would name it Silic_ium_. Seleni_um_ was

so named when it was supposed to be a metal: as its analogies are

now acknowledged to be of another kind, it would be desirable, if

the change were not too startling, to term it Sel_en_, as it is in

German. Phosph_orus_ in like manner might be Phosph_ur_, which would

indicate its analogy with Sulph_ur_.

The resource which terminations offer has been applied in other

cases. The names of many species of minerals end in _lite_, or

_ite_, as Stauro_lite_, Aug_ite_. Hence Adolphe Brongniart, in order

to form a name for a genus of fossil plants, has given this

termination to the name of the recent genus which they nearly

resemble, as Zam_ites_, from Zamia, Lycopod_ites_ from Lycopodium.

Names of different genera which differ in termination only are

properly condemned by Linnæus[58\4]; as _Alsine_, _Alsinoides_,

_Alsinella_, _Alsinastrum_; for there is no definite relation marked

by those terminations. Linnæus gives to such genera distinct names,

_Alsine_, _Bufonia_, _Sagina_, _Elatine_.

[Note 58\4: _Phil. 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; using _ane_ for the smallest proportion of

Chlorine, and _anea_ for the larger, as Cupr_ane_, Cupr_anea_. In

this nomenclature, common salt would be _Sodane_, and Chloride of

Nitrogen would be _Azotane_. This suggestion never found favour. It

was {341} objected 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 Sulphur_ous_, Sulphur_ic_. 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 in _ite_), Scolexer_ose_, Opsim_ose_, Exanthel_ose_,

&c.; Diacr_ase_, Panab_ase_, Neopl_ase_; Neocl_ese_; Rhodo_ise_,

Stibicon_ise_, &c.; Marcel_ine_, Wilhelm_ine_, &c.; Exit_ele_, 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.

APHORISM XXII.

_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._

WE have 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 the {342} old and new in a reform. Thus

he says, 'Generic names which are current, and are not accompanied

with harm to botany, should be tolerated[59\4].' 'A passable generic

name is not to be changed for another, though more apt[60\4]'. 'New

generic names are not to be framed so long as passable synonyms are

at hand[61\4].' 'A generic name of one genus, except it be

superfluous, is not to be transferred to another genus, though it

suit the other better[62\4].' '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 kind[63\4].' And

though he rejects all _generic_ names which have not a Greek or

Latin root[64\4], 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, as _Thea_,

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 Arabic

_Keiri_: and many others.

[Note 59\4: _Philosophia Botanica_, Art. 242.]

[Note 60\4: Art. 246.]

[Note 61\4: Art. 247.]

[Note 62\4: Art. 249.]

[Note 63\4: Art. 249.]

[Note 64\4: Art. 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 classes _Spar_, because _Felspar_ belongs 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 the Ninth Aphorism, that no

permanent system of names can be looked for, till a {343} sound

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

termed _Salts_;--that the Haloids are, many of them, already called

_Spars_, as _Calc Spar_, _Heavy Spar_, _Iron Spar_, _Zinc

Spar_;--that the _Silicides_, the most numerous and difficult class,

are denoted for the most part, by single words, many of which end in

_ite_;--that the other classes, or subclasses, _Oxides_, _Pyrites_,

_Glances_, and _Blendes_, have commonly been so termed; as _Red Iron

Oxide_, _Iron Pyrites_, _Zinc Blende_;--while pure metals have

usually had the adjective _native_ prefixed, as _Native 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 word _salt_ or _spar_ included in their

name, as _Natron 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); the

_Silicides_ might all have the name constructed so as to be a single

word ending in _ite_, as _Chabasite_ (Chabasie), _Natrolite_

(Mesotype), _Sommite_ (Nepheline), _Pistacite_ (Epidote); from this

rule might be excepted the _Gems_, as _Topaz_, _Emerald_,

_Corundum_, which might retain their old names. The Oxides, Pyrites,

Glances, and Blendes, might be so termed; thus we should have

_Tungstic Iron Oxide_ (usually called Tungstate of Iron), _Arsenical

Iron Pyrites_ (Mispickel), _Tetrahedral Copper Glance_ (Fahlerz),

_Quicksilver Blende_ (Cinnabar), and the metals might be termed

_native_, as _Native Copper_, _Native Silver_.

Such a nomenclature would take in a very large {344} proportion of

commonly received appellations, especially if we were to select

among the synonyms, as is proposed above in the case of _Glauber

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 say _Carbonate 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, the _Pyramidal_ and the _Prismatic_, as

not characteristic. If it were thought advisable to reform such a

defect, this might be done by calling them the _Square Pyramidal_

and the _Oblong 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 term _Depolarization_ was

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 as _Depolarization_, no better term having been yet

devised. I have proposed and used the term _Dipolarization_, {345}

which 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 speculation

_Æsthetics_; αἰσθάνεσθαι, _to perceive_, being a word which appeared

to them fit to designate the perception of beauty in particular.

Since, however, _æsthetics_ would naturally denote the Doctrine of

Perception in general; since this Doctrine requires a name; since

the term _æsthetics_ has 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 term _Callæsthetics_, or rather (in agreement with what

was said in page 338) _Callæsthetic_, the science of the perception

of beauty.

{{346}}

FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE APHORISMS

ON SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE, FROM THE

RECENT COURSE OF SCIENCES.

1. BOTANY.

THE nomenclature of Botany as rescued from confusion by Linnæus, has

in modern times been in some danger of relapsing into disorder or

becoming intolerably extensive, in consequence of the multiplication

of genera by the separation of one old genus into several new ones,

and the like subdivisions of the higher groups, as subclasses and

classes. This inconvenience, and the origin of it, have been so well

pointed out by Mr. G. Bentham[65\4], that I shall venture to adopt

his judgment as an Aphorism, and give his reasons for it.

[Note 65\4: _Linnæan Society's Proceedings_, vol. ii. p. 30 (June,

1857).]

APHORISM XXIII.

_It is of the greatest importance that the Groups which give their

substantive names to every included species should remain large._

IT will be recollected that according to the Linnæan nomenclature,

the genus is marked by a substantive, (as _Rosa_), and the species

designated by an adjective added to this substantive, (as _Rosa

Alpina_); while the natural orders are described by adjectives taken

substantively, (as _Rosaceæ_), But this rule, though it has been

universally assented to in theory, has often been deviated from in

practice. The number of known species having much increased, and the

language of Linnæus and the principles of Jussieu having much

augmented the facilities for the study of affinities, botanists have

become aware that the species of a genus and the genera of an order

can be collected into intermediate groups {347} as natural and as

well defined as the genera and orders themselves, and names are

required for these subordinate groups as much as for the genera and

orders.

Now two courses have been followed in providing names for these

subordinate groups.

1. The original genera (considering the case of genera in the first

place) have been preserved, (if well founded); and the lower groups

have been called _subgenera_, _sections_, _subsections_,

_divisions_, &c.: and the original names of the genera have been

maintained for the purpose of nomenclature, in order to retain a

convenient and stable language. But when these subordinate groups

are so well defined and so natural, that except for the convenience

of language, they might be made good genera, there are given also to

these subordinate groups, substantive or substantively-taken

adjective names. When these subordinate groups are less defined or

less natural, either no names at all are given, and they are

distinguished by figures or signs such as *, **, or § 1, § 2, &c. or

there are given them mere adjective names.

Or, 2, To regard these intermediate groups between species and the

original genera, as so many independent genera; and to give them

substantive names, to be used in ordinary botanical nomenclature.

Now the second course is that which has produced the intolerable

multiplication of genera in modern times; and the first course is

the only one which can save botanical nomenclature from replunging

into the chaos in which Linnæus found it. It was strongly advocated

by the elder De Candolle; although in the latter years of his life,

seeing how general was the disposition to convert his subgenera and

sections into genera, he himself more or less gave in to the general

practice. The same principle was adopted by Endlichen, but he again

was disposed to go far in giving substantive names to purely

technical or ill-defined subsections of genera.

The multiplication of genera has been much too common. Botanists

have a natural pride in establishing new genera (or orders); and

besides this, it is felt how useful it is, in the study of

affinities, to define and {348} name all natural groups in every

grade, however numerous they may be: and in the immense variety of

language it is found easy to coin names indefinitely.

But the arguments on the other side much preponderate. In attempting

to introduce all these new names into ordinary botanical language,

the memory is taxed beyond the capabilities of any mind, and the

original and legitimate object of the Linnæan nomenclature is wholly

lost sight of. In a purely scientific view it matters little if the

Orders are converted into Classes or Alliances, the Genera into

Orders, and the Sections or Subsections into Genera: their relative

importance does not depend on the names given to them, but on their

height in the scale of comprehensiveness. But for language, the

great implement without which science cannot work, it is of the

greatest importance, as our Aphorism declares, That the groups which

give their substantive names to every species which they include,

should remain large. If, independently of the inevitable increase of

Genera by new discoveries, such old ones as _Ficus_, _Begonia_,

_Arum_, _Erica_, &c. are divided into 10, 20, 30, or 40 independent

Genera, with names and characters which are to be recollected before

any one species can be spoken of;--if Genera are to be reckoned by

tens of thousands instead of by thousands;--the range of any

individual botanist will be limited to a small portion of the whole

field of the sciences.

And in like manner with regard to Orders, so long as the number of

Orders can be kept within, or not much beyond a couple of hundred,

it may reasonably be expected that a botanist of ordinary capacity

shall obtain a sufficient general idea of their nature and

characters to call them at any time individually to his mind for the

purpose of comparison: but if we double the number of Orders, all is

confusion.

The inevitable confusion and the necessity of maintaining in some

way the larger groups, have been perceived by those even who have

gone the furthest in lowering the scale of Orders and Genera. As a

remedy for this confusion, they propose to erect the old genera into

independent orders, and the old orders into classes {349} or

divisions. But this is but an incomplete resumption of the old

principles, without the advantage of the old nomenclature.

And it will not be asserted, with regard to these new genera, formed

by cutting up the old ones, that the new group is better defined

than the group above it: on the contrary, it is frequently less so.

It is not pretended that _Urostigma_ or _Phannacosyce_, new genera

formed out of the old genus _Ficus_, are better defined than the

genus _Ficus_: or that the new genera which have lately been cut out

of the old genus _Begonia_, form more natural groups than _Begonia_

itself does. The principle which seems to be adopted in such

subdivisions of old genera is this: that the lowest definable group

above a species is a genus. If we were to go a step further, every

species becomes a genus with a substantive name.

It ought always to be recollected that though the analytical process

carried to the uttermost, and separating groups by observation of

differences, is necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the facts

upon which botany or any other classificatory science is based, it

is a judicious synthesis alone, associating individuals by the ties

of language, which can enable the human mind to take a comprehensive

view of these facts, to deduce from them the principles of the

science, or to communicate to others either facts or principles.

2. COMPARATIVE ANATOMY.

The Language of Botany, as framed by Linnæus, and regulated by his

Canons, is still the most notable and successful example of

scientific terminology which has obtained general reception among

naturalists. But the Language of Anatomy, and especially of the

Comparative Anatomy of the skeleton, has of late been an object of

great attention to physiologists; and especially to Mr. Owen; and

the collection of terms which he has proposed are selected with so

much thought and care, that they may minister valuable lessons to us

in this part of our subject.

There is, at first sight, this broad difference between the

descriptive language of Botany and of Comparative {350} Anatomy;

that in the former science, we have comparatively few parts to

describe, (_calyx_, _corolla_, _stamen_, _pistil_, _pericarp_,

_seed_, &c.): while each of these parts is susceptible of many

forms, for describing which with precision many terms must be

provided: in Comparative Anatomy, on the other hand, the skeletons

of many animals are to be regarded as modifications of a common

type, and the terms by which their parts are described are to mark

this community of type. The terminology of Botany has for its object

_description_; the language of Comparative Anatomy must have for its

basis _morphology_. Accordingly, Mr. Owen's terms are selected so as

to express the analogies, or, as he calls them, the _homologies_ of

the skeleton; those parts of the skeleton being termed _homologues_,

which have the same place in the general type, and therefore ought

to have the same name.

Yet this distinction of the basis of botanical and anatomical

terminology is not to be pushed too far. The primary definitions in

botany, as given by Linnæus, are founded on morphological views; and

imply a general type of the structure of plants. These are his

definitions (_Phil. Bot._ Art. 86).

CALYX, _Cortex_ plantæ in Fructificatione præsens.

COROLLA, _Liber_ plantæ in Flora præsens.

STAMEN, Viscus pro Pollinis præparatione.

PISTILLUM, Viscus fructui adherens pro Pollinis receptione.

PERICARPIUM, Viscus gravidum seminibus, quæ matura dimittit.

But in what follows these leading definitions, the terms are

descriptive merely. Now in Comparative Anatomy, an important object

of terms is, to express what part of the type each bone

represents--to answer the question, _what_ is it? before we proceed,

assuming that we know what it is, to describe its shape. The

difficulty of this previous question is very great when we come to

the bones of the head; and when we assume, as morphology leads us to

do, that the heads of all vertebrated animals, including even

fishes, are composed of homologous bones. And, as I have already

{351} said in the History (b. xvii. c. 7), speaking of Animal

Morphology, the best physiologists are now agreed that the heads of

vertebrates may be resolved into a series of vertebræ, homologically

repeated and modified in different animals. This doctrine has been

gradually making its way among anatomists, through a great variety

of views respecting details; and hence, with great discrepancies in

the language by which it has been expressed. Mr. Owen has proposed a

complete series of terms for the bones of the head of all

vertebrates; and these names are supported by reasons which are full

of interest and instruction to the physiologist, on account of the

comprehensive and precise knowledge of comparative osteology which

they involve; but they are also, as I have said, interesting and

instructive to us, as exemplifying the reasons which may be given

for the adoption of words in scientific language. The reasons thus

given agree with several of the aphorisms which I have laid down,

and may perhaps suggest a few others. Mr. Owen has done me the great

honour to quote with approval some of these aphorisms. The terms

which he has proposed belong, as I have already said, to the

_Terminology_, not to the _Nomenclature_ of Zoology. In the latter

subject, the Nomenclature (the names of species) the binary

nomenclature established by Linnæus remains, in its principle,

unshaken, simple and sufficient.

I shall best derive from Mr. Owen's labours and reflexions some of

the instruction which they supply with reference to the Language of

Science, by making remarks on his terminology with reference to such

aphorisms as I have propounded on the subject, and others of a like

kind.

Mr. Owen, in his _Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton_, has given

in a Tabular Form his views of the homology of the bones of the head

of vertebrates, and the names which he consequently proposes for

each bone, with the synonyms as they occur in the writings of some

of the most celebrated anatomical philosophers, Cuvier, Geoffroy,

Hallmann, Meckel and Wagner, Agassiz and Soemmering. And he has

added to this Table his reasons for dissenting from his predecessors

{352} to the extent to which he has done so. He has done this, he

says, only where nature seemed clearly to refuse her sanction to

them; acting upon the maxim (our Aphorism X.) that new terms and

changes of terms which are not needed in order to express truth, are

to be avoided. The illustrations which I have there given, however,

of this maxim, apply rather to the changes in nomenclature than in

terminology; and though many considerations apply equally to these

two subjects, there are some points in which the reasons differ in

the two cases: especially in this point:--the names, both of genera

and of species, in a system of nomenclature, may be derived from

casual or arbitrary circumstances, as I have said in Aphorism XIII.

But the terms of a scientific terminology ought to cohere as a

system, and therefore should not commonly be derived from anything

casual or arbitrary, but from some analogy or connexion. Hence it

seems unadvisable to apply to bones terms derived from the names of

persons, as _ossa wormiana_; or even from an accident in anatomical

history, as _os innominatum_.

It is further desirable that in establishing such a terminology,

each bone should be designated by a single word, and not by a

descriptive phrase, consisting of substantive and adjective. On this

ground Mr. Owen proposes _presphenoid_ for _sphenöide anterieur_. So

also _prefrontal_ is preferred to _anterior frontal_, and

_postfrontal_ to _posterior frontal_. And the reason which he gives

for this is worthy of being stated as an Aphorism, among those which

should regulate this subject. I shall therefore state it thus:

APHORISM XXIV.

_It is advisable to substitute definite single names for descriptive

phrases as better instruments of thought._

IT will be recollected by the reader that in the case of the Linnæan

reform of the botanical nomenclature of species, this was one of the

great improvements which was introduced.

Again: some of the first of the terms which Mr. Owen proposes

illustrate, and confirm by their manifest claim {353} to acceptance,

a maxim which we stated as Aphorism XXII.: namely,

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.

Thus for 'basilaire,' which Cuvier exclusively applies to the 'pars

basilaris' of the occiput, and which Geoffroy as exclusively applies

(in birds) to the 'pars basilaris' of the sphenoid, Mr. Owen

substitutes the term _basioccipital_.

Again: for the term 'suroccipital' of Geoffroy, Mr. Owen proposes

_paroccipital_, to avoid confusion and false suggestion: and with

reference to this word, he makes a remark in agreement with what we

have said in the discussion of Aphorism XXI.: namely, that the

combination of different languages in the derivation of words,

though to be avoided in general, is in some cases admissible. He

says, 'If the purists who are distressed by such harmless hybrids as

"mineralogy," "terminology," and "mammalogy," should protest against

the combination of the Greek prefix to the Latin noun, I can only

plead that servility to a particular source of the fluctuating

sounds of vocal language is a matter of taste: and that it seems no

unreasonable privilege to use such elements as the servants of

thought; and in the interests of science to combine them, even

though they come from different countries, when the required duty is

best and most expeditiously performed by their combination.'

So again we have illustrations of our Aphorism XII., that if terms

are systematically good they are not to be rejected because they are

etymologically inaccurate. In reference to that bone of the skull

which has commonly been called _vomer_, the ploughshare: a term

which Geoffroy rejected, but which Mr. Owen retains, he says, 'When

Geoffrey was induced to reject the term _vomer_ as being applicable

only to the peculiar form of the bone in a small portion of the

vertebrata, he appears not to have considered that the old term, in

its wider application, would be used without reference to its

primary allusion to the ploughshare, and that becoming, as it {354}

has, a purely arbitrary term, it is superior and preferable to any

partially descriptive one.'

Another condition which I have mentioned in Aphorism XX., as

valuable in technical terms is, that they should be susceptible of

such grammatical relations as their scientific use requires.

This is, in fact, one of the grounds of the Aphorism which we have

already borrowed from Mr. Owen, that we are to prefer single

substantives to descriptive phrases. For from such substantives we

can derive adjectives, and other forms; and thus the term becomes,

as Mr. Owen says, _a better instrument of thought_. Hence, he most

consistently mentions it as a recommendation of his system of names,

that by them the results of a long series of investigations into the

special homologies of the bones of the head are expressed in simple

and definite terms, _capable of every requisite inflection_ to

express the proportion of the parts.

I may also, in reference to this same passage in Mr. Owen's appeal

in behalf of his terminology, repeat what I have said under Aphorism

X.: that the persons who may most properly propose new scientific

terms, are 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 to eminent discoverers and profound

philosophers that the authority is conceded of introducing a new

system of terms; just as it is only the highest authority in the

state which has the power of putting a new coinage into circulation.

The long series of investigations of which the results are contained

in Mr. Owen's table of synonyms, and the philosophical spirit of his

generalizations, entitles him to a most respectful hearing when he

appeals to the Professors and Demonstrators of Human Anatomy for an

unbiassed consideration of the advantages of the terms proposed by

him, as likely to remedy the conflicting and unsettled synonymy

which has hitherto pervaded the subject.

There is another remark which is suggested by the works on

Comparative Anatomy, which I am now considering. I have said in

various places that Technical {355} Terms are a necessary condition

of the progress of a science. But we may say much more than this:

and the remark is so important, that it deserves to be stated as one

of our Aphorisms, as follows:

APHORISM XXV.

_In an advanced Science, the history of the Language of the Science

is the history of the Science itself._

I HAVE already stated in previous Aphorisms (VIII. and XI.) that

Terms must be constructed so as to be fitted to enunciate general

propositions, and that Terms which imply theoretical views are

admissible for this purpose. And hence it happens that the history

of Terms in any science which has gone through several speculative

stages, is really the history of the generalizations and theories

which have had currency among the cultivators of the science.

This appears in Comparative Anatomy from what we have been saying.

The recent progress of that science is involved in the rise and

currency of the Terms which have been used by the anatomists whose

synonyms Mr. Owen has to discuss; and the reasons for selecting

among these, or inventing others, include those truths and

generalizations which are the important recent steps of the science.

The terms which are given by Mr. Owen in his table to denote the

bones of the head are good terms, _if_ they _are_ good terms,

because their adoption and use is the only complete way of

expressing the truths of homology: namely, of that Special Homology,

according to which all vertebrate skeletons are referred to the

human skeleton as their type, and have their parts designated

accordingly.

But further: there is another kind of homology which Mr. Owen calls

_General_ Homology, according to which the primary type of a

vertebrate animal is merely a series of vertebræ; and all limbs and

other appendages are only developements of the parts of one or

another of the vertebræ. And in order to express this view, and in

proportion as the doctrine has become current amongst {356}

anatomists, the parts of vertebræ have been described by terms of a

degree of generality which admit of such an interpretation. And

here, also, Mr. Owen has proposed a terminology for the parts of the

vertebræ, which seems to convey more systematically and

comprehensively than those of preceding writers the truths to which

they have been tending. Each vertebra is composed of a _centrum_,

_neurapophysis_, _parapophysis_, _pleurapophysis_, _hæmaphysis_,

_neural spine_ and _hæmal spine_, with certain exogenous parts.

The opinion that the head, as well as the other parts of the frame

of vertebrates, is composed of vertebræ, is now generally accepted

among philosophical anatomists. In the _History_ (_Hist. I. S._ b.

xvii. c. 7, sect. 1), I have mentioned this opinion as proposed by

some writers; and I have stated that Oken, in 1807 published a

'Program' _On the signification of the bones of the Skull_, in which

he maintained, that these bones are equivalent to four vertebræ:

while Meckel, Spix, and Geoffroy took views somewhat different.

Cuvier and Agassiz opposed this doctrine, but Mr. Owen has in his

_Archetype and Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton_ (1848),

accepted the views of Oken, and argued at length against the

objections of Cuvier, and also those of Mr. Agassiz. As I have noted

in the last edition of the _History of the Inductive Sciences_ (b.

xvii. c. 7), he gives a Table in which the Bones of the Head are

resolved into four vertebræ, which he terms the Occipital, Parietal,

Frontal and Nasal Vertebræ respectively: the neural arches of which

agree with what Oken called the Ear-vertebra, the Jaw-vertebra, the

Eye-vertebra, and the Nose-vertebra.

Besides these doctrines of _Special Homology_ by which the bones of

all vertebrates are referred to their corresponding bones in the

human skeleton, and of _General Homology_, by which the bones are

referred to the parts of vertebræ which they represent, Mr. Owen

treats of _Serial Homology_, the recognition of the same elements

throughout the series of segments of the same skeleton; as when we

shew in what manner the arms correspond to the legs. And thus, he

says, in the head also, the _basioccipital_, _basisphenoid_,

_presphenoid_ and _vomer_ are {357} homotypes with the _centrums_ of

all succeeding vertebræ. The _excoccipitals_,_ alisphenoids_,

_orbitosphenoids_, and _prefrontals_, are homotypes with the

_neurapophyses_ of all the succeeding vertebræ. The _paroccipitals_,

_mactoids_ and _postfrontals_, with the _transverse processes_ of

all the succeeding vertebræ: and so on. Perhaps these examples may

exemplify sufficiently for the general reader both Mr. Owen's

terminology, and the intimate manner in which it is connected with

the widest generalizations to which anatomical philosophy has yet

been led.

The same doctrine, that the history of the Language of a Science is

the history of the Science, appears also in the recent progress of

Chemistry; but we shall be better able to illustrate our Aphorism in

this case by putting forward previously one or two other Aphorisms

bearing upon the history of that Science.

APHORISM XXVI.

_In the Terminology of Science it may be necessary to employ

letters, numbers, and algebraical symbols._

1. MINERALOGY.

I HAVE already said, in Aphorism XV., that symbols have been found

requisite as a part of the terminology of Mineralogy. The _names_

proposed by Haüy, borrowed from the crystalline laws, were so

inadequate and unsystematic that they could not be retained. He

himself proposed a _notation_ for crystalline forms, founded upon

his principle of the derivation of such forms from a _primitive_

form, by _decrements_, on its _edges_ or its _angles_. To denote

this derivation he took the first letters of the three syllables to

mark the faces of the _PriMiTive_ form, _P_, _M_, _T_; the vowels

_A_, _E_, _I_, _O_ to mark the angles; the consonants _B_, _C_, _D_,

&c. to mark the edges; and numerical exponents, annexed in various

positions to these letters, represented the law and manner of

derivation. Thus when the primitive form was a cube,

1

_B_

represented the result of a derivation by a decrement of one row

{358} on an edge; that is, a rhombic octahedron; and

1

_BP_ represented the combination of this octahedron with the

primitive cube. In this way the pentagonal dodecahedron, produced by

decrements of 2 to 1 on half the edges of the cube, was represented by

½

_B_² _C G_² ²_G_.

Not only, however, was the hypothesis of primitive forms and

decrements untenable, but this notation was too unsystematic to

stand long. And when Weiss and Mohs established the distinction of

Systems of Crystallography[66\4], they naturally founded upon that

distinction a notation for crystalline forms. Mohs had several

followers; but his algebraical notation so barbarously violated all

algebraical meaning, that it was not likely to last. Thus, from a

primitive rhombohedron which he designated by _R_, he derived, by a

certain process, a series of other rhombohedrons, which he denoted

by _R_ + 1, _R_ + 2, _R_ − 1, &c.; and then, by another mode of

derivation from them, he obtained forms which he marked as

(_R_ + 2)², (_R_ + 2)³, &c. In doing this he used the algebraical

marks of addition and involution without the smallest ground;

besides many other proposals no less transgressing mathematical

analogy and simplicity.

[Note 66\4: _Hist. Ind. Sc._ b. xv. c. 4.]

But this notation might easily suggest a better. If we take a

primitive form, we can generally, by two steps of derivation, each

capable of numerical measure, obtain any possible face; and

therefore any crystalline form bounded by such faces. Hence all that

we need indicate in our crystalline laws is the primitive form, and

two numerical exponents; and rejecting all superfluity in our

symbols, instead of (_R_ + 2)³ we might write 2 _R_ 3. Nearly of

this kind is the notation of Naumann. The systems of

crystallization, the octahedral or tessular, the rhombic, and the

prismatic, are marked by the letters _O_, _R_, _P_; and from these

are derived, by certain laws, such symbols as

3 _O_ ½, ∞ _R_ 2, ½ _P_ 2, {359}

which have their definite signification flowing from the rules of

the notation.

But Professor Miller, who has treated the subject of Crystallography

in the most general and symmetrical manner, adopts the plan of

marking each crystalline plane by _three_ numerical indices. Thus in

the Octahedral System, the cube is {100}; the octahedron is {111};

the rhombic dodecahedron is {011}; the pentagonal dodecahedron is π

{012}; where π indicates that the form is not _holohedral_ but

_hemihedral_, only half the number of faces being taken which the

law of derivation would give. This system is the most mathematically

consistent, and affords the best means of calculation, as Professor

Miller has shown; but there appears to be in it this defect, that

though an essential part of the scheme is the division of

crystalline forms into Systems,--the Octahedral, Pyramidal,

Rhombohedral and Prismatic,--this division does not at all appear in

the notation.

But whatever be the notation which the crystallographer adopts, it

is evident that he must employ some notation; and that, without it,

he will be unable to express the forms and relations of forms with

which he has to deal.

2. CHEMISTRY.

The same has long been the case in Chemistry. As I have stated

elsewhere[67\4], the chemical nomenclature of the oxygen theory was

for a time very useful and effective. But yet it had defects which

could not be overlooked, as I have already stated under Aphorism II.

The relations of elements were too numerous, and their numerical

properties too important, to be expressed by terminations and other

modifications of words. Thus the compounds of Nitrogen and Oxygen

are the Protoxide, the Deutoxide, Nitrous Acid, Peroxide of

Nitrogen, Nitric Acid. The systematic nomenclature here, even thus

loosely extended, does not express our knowledge. And the Atomic

Theory, when established, brought to view numerical {360} relations

which it was very important to keep in sight. If _N_ represents

Nitrogen and _O_ Oxygen, the compounds of the two elements just

mentioned might be denoted by _N_ + _O_, _N_ + 2_O_, _N_ + 3_O_,

_N_ + 4_O_, _N_ + 5_O_. And by adopting a letter for each of the

elementary substances, all the combinations of them might be

expressed in this manner.

[Note 67\4: _Hist. Ind. Sc._ b. xiv. c. 6.]

But in chemistry there are different orders of combination. A salt,

for instance, is a compound of a base and an acid, each of which is

already compound. If _Fe_ be iron and _C_ be carbon, _Fe_ + _O_ will

be the protoxide of iron, and _C_ + 2_O_ will be carbonic acid; and

the carbonate of iron (more properly carbonate of protoxide of

iron), may be represented by

(_Fe_ + _O_) + (_C_ + 2_O_)

where the brackets indicate the first stage of composition.

But these brackets and signs of addition, in complex cases, would

cumber the page in an inconvenient degree; and oxygen is of such

very wide occurrence, that it seems desirable to abridge the

notation so far as it is concerned. Hence Berzelius proposed[68\4]

that in the first stage of composition the oxygen should be

expressed by dots over the letter; and thus the carbonate of iron

would be [.]_Fe_ + [..]_C_. But Berzelius further introduced into

his notation indexes such as in algebra denote involution to the

square, cube, &c. Thus _Cu_ being copper, the sulphate of copper is

represented by [...]_S_²[..]_Cu_. This notation, when first

proposed, was strongly condemned by English chemists, and

Berzelius's reply to them may be taken as stating the reasons in

favour of such notation. He says[69\4], 'We answer to the opponents,

that undoubtedly the matter may be looked at in various lights. The

use of Formulæ has always, for a person who has not accustomed

himself to them, something repulsive; but this is easy to overcome.

I agree with my opponent, {361} who says that nothing can be

understood in a Formula which cannot be expressed in words; and that

if the words express it as easily as the Formula, the use of the

latter would be a folly. But there are cases in which this is not

so; in which the Formula says in a glance what it would take many

lines to express in words; and in which the expression of the

Formula is clearer and more easily apprehended by the reader than

the longer description in words. Let us examine such a Formula, and

compare it with the equivalent description in words. Take, for

example, crystallized sulphate of copper, of which the Formula is

[..]_Cu_[...]_S_² + 10_H_²_O_.

Now this Formula expresses the following propositions:

'That the salt consists of one atom of copper-oxide combined with 2

atoms of sulphuric acid and with 10 atoms of water; that the

copper-oxide contains two atoms of oxygen; and that the sulphuric

acid contains 3 atoms of oxygen for one atom of sulphur; that its

oxygen is three times as much as that of the oxide; and that the

number of atoms of oxygen in the acid is 6; and that the number of

atoms of oxygen in the water is 10; that is, 5 times the number in

the oxide; and that finally the salt contains, of simple atoms, 1

copper, 2 sulphur, 20 hydrogen, and 18 oxygen.

[Note 68\4: _System of Mineralogy_, 1816.]

[Note 69\4: _Jahresbericht_, 1824, p. 119.]

'Since so much is expressed in this brief Formula, how very long

would the explanation be for a more composite body, for example,

Alum; for which the Formula is

[..]_K_[...]_S_² + 2[...]_Al_[...]_S_³ + 48_H_²_O_.

It would take half a page to express all which this Formula contains.

'Perhaps it may be objected that it is seldom that any one wants to

know all this at once. But it might reasonably be said in reply,

that the peculiar value of the Formula consists in this, that it

contains answers to all the questions which can be asked with regard

to the composition of the body. {362}

'But these Formulæ have also another application, of which I have

sometimes had occasion to make use. Experiments sometimes bring

before us combinations which cannot be foreseen from the

nomenclature, and for which it is not always easy to find a

consistent and appropriate name. In writing, the Formula may be

applied instead of a Name: and the reader understands it better than

if one made a new name. In my treatise upon the sulphuretted

alkalies I found Degrees of Sulphur-combination, for which

Nomenclature has no name. I expressed them, for example, by _KS_^6,

_KS_^8, _KS_^10 and I believed that every one understood what was

thereby meant. Moreover, I found another class of bodies in which an

electro-negative sulphuretted metal played the part of an Acid with

respect to an electro-positive sulphuretted metal, for which a whole

new nomenclature was needed; while yet it were not prudent to

construct such a nomenclature, till more is known on the subject.

Instead of new names I used formulas; for example,

_KS_² + 2_As S_³,

instead of saying the combination of 2 atoms of Sulphuret of Arsenic

containing 3 atoms of Sulphur, with one atom of Sulphuret of

Potassium (Kali) with the least dose of sulphur.'

Berzelius goes on to say that the English chemists had found

themselves unable to find any substitutes for his formulæ when they

translated his papers.

Our English chemists have not generally adopted the notation of

oxygen by dots; but have employed commas or full stops and symbols

(, or . and +), to denote various degrees of union, and numerical

indices. Thus the double sulphate of copper and potash is

_Cu O_, _SO__3 + _KO_, _SO__3.

What has been said is applicable mainly to inorganic bodies (as

salts and minerals)[70\4]. In these bodies there is (at least

according to the views of many intelligent chemists) a _binary_ plan

of combination, union taking {363} place between _pairs_ of elements,

and the compounds so produced again uniting themselves to other

compound bodies in the same manner. Thus, in the above example,

copper and oxygen combine into oxide of copper, potassium and oxygen

into potash, sulphur and oxygen into sulphuric acid; sulphuric acid

in its turn combines both with oxide of copper and oxide of

potassium, generating a pair of salts which are capable of uniting

to form the double compound _Cu O_, _SO__3 + _KO_, _SO__3.

[Note 70\4: Fownes's _Chemistry_. Part iii.]

The most complicated products of inorganic chemistry may be thus

shown to be built up by this repeated _pairing_ on the part of their

constituents. But with organic bodies the case is remarkably

different; no such arrangement can here be traced. In sugar, which

is _C__12 _H__11 _O__11, or morphia[71\4], which is

_C__35 _H__20 _NO__6, the elements are as it were bound together

into a single whole, which can enter into combination with other

substances, and be thence discharged with properties unaltered;

the elements not being obviously arranged in any subordinate groups.

Hence the symbols for those substances are such as I have given above,

no marks of combination being used.

[Note 71\4: Fownes's _Chemistry_, p. 354.]

It is perhaps a consequence of this peculiarity that organic

compounds are _unstable_ in comparison with inorganic. In unorganic

substances generally the elements are combined in such a way that

the most powerful affinities are satisfied[72\4], and hence arises a

state of very considerable permanence and durability. But in an

organic substance containing three or four elements, there are often

opposing affinities nearly balanced, and when one of these

tendencies by some accident obtains a preponderance and the

equilibrium is destroyed, then the organic body breaks up into two

or more new bodies of simpler and more permanent constitution.

[Note 72\4: See _Hist. Ind. Sc._ b. xiv. c. 3.]

There is another property of many organic substances which is called

the _Law of Substitution_. The {364} Hydrogen of the organic

substance may often be replaced by Chlorine, Bromine, Iodine, or

some other elements, without the destruction of the primitive type

or constitution of the compound so modified. And this substitution

may take place by several successive steps, giving rise to a series

of substitution-compounds, which depart more and more in properties

from the original substance. This Law also gives rise to a special

notation. Thus a certain compound called _Dutch liquid_ has the

elements _C__4 _H__4 _Cl__2: but this substance is affected by

chlorine (_Cl_) in obedience to the law of substitution; one and two

equivalents of hydrogen being successively removed by the prolonged

action of chlorine gas aided by sunshine. The successive products

may be thus written

_H__3 _H__2

_C__4 _H__4 _Cl__2; _C__4 { } _Cl__2; _C_4 { } _Cl__2.

_Cl_ _Cl_2

Perhaps at a future period, chemical symbols, and especially those

of organic bodies, may be made more systematic and more significant

than they at present are.

APHORISM XXVII.

_In using algebraical symbols as a part of scientific language,

violations of algebraical analogy are to be avoided, but may be

admitted when necessary._

AS we must in scientific language conform to etymology, so must we

to algebra; and as we are not to make ourselves the slaves of the

former, so also, not to the latter. Hence we reject such

crystallographical notation as that of Mohs; and in chemistry we use

_C__2, _O__3 rather than _C_², _O_³, which signify the square of _C_

and the cube of _O_. But we may use, as we have said, both the comma

and the sign of addition, for chemical combination, for the sake of

brevity, though both steps of combination are really addition. {365}

APHORISM XXVIII.

_In a complex science, which is in a state of transition, capricious

and detached derivations of terms are common; but are not

satisfactory._

IN this remark I have especial reference to Chemistry; in which the

discoveries made, especially in organic chemistry, and the

difficulty of reducing them to a system, have broken up in several

instances the old nomenclature, without its being possible at

present to construct a new set of terms systematically connected.

Hence it has come to pass that chemists have constructed words in a

capricious and detached way: as by taking fragments of words, and

the like. I shall give some examples of such derivations, and also

of some attempts which have more of a systematic character.

I have mentioned (Aph. **XX. sect. 7) the word _Ellagic_ (acid), made

by inverting the word _Galle_. Several words have recently been

formed by chemists by taking syllables from two or more different

words. Thus Chevreul discovered a substance to which he gave the

name **_Ethal_, from the first syllables of the words _ether_ and

_alcohol_, because of its analogy to those liquids in point of

composition[73\4]. So Liebig has the word _chloral_[74\4].

[Note: 73\4: Turner's _Chemistry_, 1834, p. 955]

[Note: 74\4: Berzelius' _Jahresbericht_, xv. p. 372.]

Liebig, examining the product of distillation of alcohol, sulphuric

acid and amber, found a substance which he termed _Aldehyd_, from

the words _Al_cohol _dehyd_rogenated[75\4]. This mode of making

Words has been strongly objected to by Mr. Dumas[76\4]. Still more

has he objected to the word _Mercaptan_ (of Zeise), which {366} he

says rests upon a mere play of words; for it means both _mercurium

captans_ and _mercurio aptum_.

[Note 75\4: _Ibid._ xvi. p. 308.]

[Note 76\4: _Leçons de Chimie_, p. 354.]

Dumas and Peligot, working on pyroligneous acids, found reason to

believe the existence of a substance[77\4] which they called

_methylene_, deriving the name from _methy_, a spirituous fluid, and

_hyle_, wood. Berzelius remarks that the name should rather be

_methyl_, and that ὕλη may be taken in its signification of matter,

to imply the Radical of Wine: and he proposes that the older

Æther-Radical, _C__4 _H__10 shall be called _Æthyl_, the newer,

_C__2 _H__6, _Methyl_.

[Note 77\4: Berzelius' _Jahresbericht_, xv. (1836).]

This notion of marking by the termination _yl_ the hypothetical

compound radical of a series of chemical compounds has been

generally adopted; and, as we see from the above reference, it must

be regarded as representing the Greek word ὕλη: and such

hypothetical radicals of bases have been termed in general _basyls_.

Bunsen obtained from Cadet's fuming liquid a substance which he

called _Alkarsin_ (_alk_ali-_ars_enic?): and the substance produced

from this by oxidation he called _Alkargen_[78\4]. Berzelius was of

opinion, that the true view of its composition was that it contained

a compound ternary radical = _C_^6 _H_^12 _As_^2, after the manner of

organic bodies; and he proposed for this the name[79\4] _Kakodyl_.

Alkarsin is Kakodyl-oxyd, [.]Kd, Alkargen is Kakodyl-acid, [∴]Kd.

[Note 78\4: _Ibid._ xviii. p. 497.]

[Note 79\4: _Ibid._ xx. p. 527.]

The discovery of Kakodyl was the first instance of the insulation of

an organic metallic _basyl_[80\4].

[Note 80\4: Miller's _Chemistry_, iii. 220.]

The first of the Hydrocarbon Radicals of the Alcohols was the

radical of Tetrylic alcohol obtained by Kolbe from Valerate of

Potash, and hence called _Valyl_ _C__16 _H__18.

_Chloroform_ is per_chloride_ of _formyl_, the hypothetical radical

of formic acid[81\4].

[Note 81\4: Dumas, _Leçons sur la Phil. Chim._ p. 356.]

{367} The discovery of such bases goes back to 1815. The substance

formerly called _Prussiate of Mercury_, being treated in a

particular manner, was resolved into metallic mercury and

_Cyanogen_. This substance, _Cyanogen_, is, according to the older

nomenclature, _Bicarburet of Nitrogen_; but chemists are agreed that

its most convenient name is _Cyanogen_, proposed by its discoverer,

Gay-Lussac, in 1815[82\4]. The importance of the discovery consists

in this; that this substance was the first compound body which was

distinctly proved to enter into combination with elementary

substances in a manner similar to that in which they combine with

each other.

[Note 82\4: Turner's _Chemistry_ (1834), p. 420. Miller's

_Chemistry_, ii. 66.]

The truth of our Aphorism (XXV.) that in such a science as

chemistry, the history of the scientific nomenclature is the history

of the science, appears from this; that the controversies with

respect to chemical theories and their application take the form of

objections to the common systematic names and proposals of new names

instead. Thus a certain compound of potassa, sulphur, hydrogen, and

oxygen, may be regarded either as _Hydrosulphate of Potassa_, or as

_Sulphide of Potassium in solution_, according to different

views[83\4]. In some cases indeed, changes are made merely for the

sake of clearness. Instead of _Hydrochloric_ and _Hydrocyanic_ acid,

many French writers, following Thenard, transpose the elements of

these terms; they speak of _Chlorhydric_ and _Cyanhydric_ acid; by

this means they avoid any ambiguity which might arise from the use

of the prefix _Hydro_, which has sometimes been applied to compounds

which contain water[84\4].

[Note 83\4: Miller's _Chemistry_, vol. ii. p. 583.]

[Note 84\4: _Ibid._ ii. 433.]

An incompleteness in chemical nomenclature was further felt, when it

appeared, from the properties of various substances, that mere

identity in chemical composition is not sufficient to produce

identity of chemical character or properties[85\4]. The doctrine of

{368} the existence of compounds identical in ultimate composition,

but different in chemical properties, was termed _Isomerism_. Thus

chemists enumerate the following compounds, all of which contain

carbon and hydrogen in the proportion of single equivalents of

each[86\4];--_Methylene_, _Olefiant gas_, _Propylene_, _Oil gas_,

_Amylene_, _Caproylene_, _Naphthene_, _Eleene_, _Peramylene_,

_Cetylene_, _Cerotylene_, _Melissine_.

[Note 85\4: _Ibid._ ii. 653.]

[Note 86\4: Miller's _Chemistry_, ii. p. 654.]

I will, in the last place, propound an Aphorism which has already

offered itself in considering the history of Chemistry[87\4] as

having a special bearing upon that Science, but which may be

regarded as the supreme and ultimate rule with regard to the

language of Science.

[Note 87\4: _Hist. Ind. Sc._ b. xiv. c. 1.]

APHORISM XXIX.

_In learning the meaning of Scientific Terms, the history of science

is our Dictionary: the steps of scientific induction are our

Definitions._

IT is usual for unscientific readers to complain that the technical

terms which they meet with in books of science are not accompanied

by plain definitions such as they can understand. But such

definitions cannot be given. For definitions must consist of words;

and, in the case of scientific terms, must consist of words which

require again to be defined: and so on, without limit. _Elementary

substances_ in chemistry, for instance, what are they? The

substances into which bodies can be _analysed_, and by the junction

of which they are _composed_. But what is _analysis_? what is

_composition_? We have seen that it required long and laborious

courses of experiment to answer these questions; and that finally

the balance decided among rival answers. And so it is in other

cases. In entering upon each science, we come upon a new set of

words. And how are we to learn {369} the meaning of this collection

of words? In what other language shall it be explained? In what

terms shall we define these new expressions? To this we are

compelled to reply, that we cannot translate these terms into any

ordinary or familiar language. Here, as in all other branches of

knowledge, the meaning of words is to be sought in the progress of

thought. It is only by going back through the successful researches

of men respecting the _composition_ and _elements_ of bodies, that

we can learn in what sense such terms can be understood, so as to

convey real knowledge. In order that they may have a meaning for us,

we must inquire what meaning they had in the minds of the authors of

our discoveries. And the same is the case in other subjects. To take

the instance of Morphology. When the beginner is told that every

group of animals may be reduced to an _Archetype_, he will seek for

a definition of Archetype. Such a definition has been offered, to

this effect: the Archetype of a group of animals is a diagram

embodying all the organs and parts which are found in the group in

such a relative position as they would have had if none had attained

an excessive development. But, then, we are led further to ask, How

are we in each case to become acquainted with the diagram; to know

of what parts it consists, and how they are related; and further;

What is the standard of _excess_? It is by a wide examination of

particular species, and by several successive generalizations of

observed facts, that we are led to a diagram of an animal form of a

certain kind, (for example, a vertebrate;) and of the various ways,

excessive and defective, in which the parts may be developed.

This craving for definitions, as we have already said, arises in a

great degree from the acquaintance with geometry which most persons

acquire at an early age. The definitions of geometry are easily

intelligible by a beginner, because the idea of space, of which they

are modifications, is clearly possessed without any special culture.

But this is not and cannot be the case in other sciences founded

upon a wide and exact observation of facts. {370}

It was formerly said that there was no Royal Road to Geometry: in

modern times we have occasion often to repeat that there is no

Popular Road--no road easy, pleasant, offering no difficulty and

demanding no toil,--to Comparative Anatomy, Chemistry or any other

of the Inductive Sciences.

THE END.

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Transcriber's Notes

Whewell published the first edition of the _Philosophy of the

Inductive Sciences_ in 1840 in two volumes, as a companion to the

1837 _History of the Inductive Sciences_. Revised second editions of

both works appeared in 1847. The third editions saw a major

reshaping of the _Philosophy_: a two volume _History of Scientific

Ideas_ (1858; in Project Gutenberg as #69093), _Novum Organon

Renovatum_ (1858; the present text, relying upon resources kindly

provided by the Internet Archive), and _On the Philosophy of

Discovery: chapters historical and critical_ (1860; long since in

Project Gutenberg's collection as #5155). (The third edition of the

_History of the Inductive Sciences_ is available in PG as #68693.)

Adaptations in this text

In the present text footnotes are numbered by Book and are placed

after the paragraph to which they attach; in the original, notes

were numbered by chapter. Page numbers appear in { }, or {{ }} when

the number is not printed. Where a word was hyphenated across pages

the number has been placed before the word. Fractions have been

transcribed as numerator ⁄ denominator; the original usually has

numerator over a line with denominator below.

Some unusual symbols occur. On pages 357 and 358, there are italic

letters with a number written above them. On two occasions B has a

1 above it, and once C has ½ above it. On page 364 a formula is

written with two entries containing H on a line above Cl. These

superpositions have been preserved at the cost of some short lines.

The other oddities have been captured by using [ ] to indicate items

above the following character. (They should not be confused with the

use of [ ] for footnote anchors.) For superscripts ^ has been used

except for expressions using only the superscripted numbers

available in Unicode. Subscripts are indicated by a _ preceding the

character. (This unfortunately results in double __ when the

preceding characters are in italics.)

On pages 152 and 197 Whewell uses a raised dot as a decimal point

and in footnote 26\3 a comma. These have been replaced by a mid dot.

Inductive Charts

At the end of Book II., Whewell included two very large inserts,

described in some detail in the Book itself. They were not captured

by the scans available in the Internet Archive. I was kindly

provided with photographs of them. Those charts were four times as

wide as the normal page and a quarter as long. In the html version

they have been fairly accurately represented via tables; but with up

to 25 columns these tables will be very difficult to decipher on

small screens. In the text version, coded structure diagrams have

been used, which again utilise the full 70 spaces Project Gutenberg

allows. Rather than the tree shape Whewell used, the diagrams have

been made to flow from left to right.

Corrections

Corrections are comparatively few. Apart from the silent ones, they

have been marked by ** and are listed below.

Page Printed text Corrected text

{{xiii}} v iii

LXX. LXXIII.

LXXXV. LXXXII.

p. 12 of and

p. 128 word work

note 21\3 i. ii.

p. 322 Wafferstoff Wasserstoff

p. 365 XV. XX.

Ethol Ethal

Given the various editions, some of the internal cross-references

turn out to be obsolete or erroneous:

note 11\3 reads B. viii. c. iii. but it refers actually to Book viii.

c. ii. article 3 in earlier editions and in the _History of Scientific

Ideas_, cf. Aphorism 88 in Book I. of the present volume. Compare also

Aphorism 19 in this volume's Book IV.

notes 58\3 and 59\3 refer to Book v. c. i. For the present third

edition they should have been aimed at that chapter of the _History

of Scientific Ideas_.

There are some inconsistencies, notably in spelling, which have in

general not been adjusted; nor have Whewell's unbalanced quotation

marks and positioning of footnote anchors been modernized.