manner in which he has conducted himself throughout, and though we may differ from him in a few trifling particulars, we trust he will receive our remarks in good part and believe what is really the case, that we mean merely to begin that discussion concerning his povisional alterations which he himself has solicited, and if we are mistaken no person is better qualified to set us right than Dr. Pearson himself, who has enriched the science of chemistry with several very important discoveries, and whose writings display a degree of learning and acuteness that does him the greatest honour.

We must acknowledge at the very outset that we do not see the propriety of some of the rules, which the framers of the Nomencla ture have laid down. Chemical words are of two kinds, specific and general. Gold, lime, oxygen are specific words; metal, oxide, sulphat are general, including under them a great many specific things. Specific names are of two kinds, either they denote fimple substances, that is, not yet decompounded (which is all that we can mean by simple) or they denote compound substances. The authors of the New Nomenclature have laid it down as a rule to denote the first of these kinds, if possible, by a name indicating the most important chemical property of the substances; and to name the second kind from their composition. We see no objection to the first of these rules when a new word is required at any rate. But we object, in toto, to the reason assigned for it by our Nomenclature-makers, which is that the word may, upon all occasions, suggest the property from which the substance has received its name. This reason has opened a door for the objections of etymologists and philologists to enter, and their objections are without number. We appeal to every person whether any specific name, let its origin be what you please, ever suggests any thing to us, provided it be familiar to us, but the substance itself of which it is the symbol. Does the word molybdena, for instance, ever suggest to the mind of the chemist, the idea of lead? Yet every smatterer in Greek knows that lead is its original meaning. All specific names are, in fact, mere symbols, and ought to be mere symbols, and to suggest nothing but the substance for which they stand. The great rule, therefore, in imposing specific names ought to be to chuse a word which cannot be confounded with any other, which suits the language, and which is of such a nature that it will readily adapt itself to all the purposes for which may be used.

it

As to the second rule, which refers to the names of compound substances, the framers of the Nomenclature seem to have understood it perfectly; but its meaning has apparently escaped the whole of those who have criticised the New Nomenclature. Specific words are of two kinds; some denote substances agreeing in so many particulars that they may be all included under one general word, representing them all indifferently. Thus lime, magnesia, barytes, may be all included under the general word earth. Other specific words present substances resembling each other so little that they cannot be included under a general word. When a number of substances, capable of being represented by a general word, hap

pen

pen to agree also in their composition, so far that the same substance enters into them all, then the generic name may be such, that it shall indicate the particular substance common to them all. Thus nitrat may signify all those neutral salts which have nitric acid for a component part; and avide all those metals which are combined with oxygen. If the substances, included under these general names, happen to contain only one other important ingredient, the name of that ingredient may be added to the general name in order to form a specific name. Thus every specific name will indicate two ingredients that enter into the composition of the substance of which it is the name. Thus nitrat of lime, nitrat of soda, oxide of iron, oxide of copper, But even in this case it is not, strictly speaking, the whole composition that is indicated, but merely the two most important ingredients. Thus the word sulphat of soda merely indicates the presence of sulphuric acid and of soda in the body, of which it is the name, omitting water altogether, though likewise an ingredient.

The authors of the New Nomenclature have only succeeded in indicating the composition when the bodies named admitted of a generic term. Thus, oxide, sulphuret, carburet, sulphuric, sulphurus, sulphat, sulphite. In the last four examples the terminations ic, ous, at, ite are, in fact, general words as they answer all the purposes of such words. But whenever they have attempted to indicate the composition without generic words, or to apply generic words improperly, in order to indicate composition, they have not succeeded at all. Thus who would bear to hear sugar called hydro-carbonic oxide, or water oxide of hydrogen? The reason is, that there is no such resemblance between sugar, water, and metals as to admit of a common generic name.

Generic names, in most cases, act the part of adjectives, and are therefore the symbols of some quality or state. This renders it necessary to be more attentive to the meaning of generic names. Hence the danger of applying them without great care to act the part of specific names. One great improvement of the New Nomenclature consisted in remedying this defect, which had been carried by chemists to a great length. Thus the words vital air, phlogisticated air, dephlogisticated air, inflammable air were very properly banished, and specific words, which never can mislead, substituted in their place. Thus the generic word calx was expelled, because it conveyed a false idea, and oxide, which indicated the real state, substituted. The grand error into which they fell was attempting to make some generic words too general; this was the case with oxide in particular, and the fault has been carried farther by succeeding chemists.

After premising these things, to which we shall refer occasionally, let us proceed to the Nomenclature itself, and to Dr. Pearson's alterations. The table of the Nomenclature is divided into six columns; the first column contains the names of all the simple substances; the second of these substances in the state of gas; the third combined with oxygen; the fourth, the names of the sub

04

stances

stances in the third, in the state of gas; the fifth, the same sub stances combined with bases; and the sixth, the simple substances combined with other bodies.

The names in the first column are all specific. The first word objected to is caloric. It has been said that this word is ambiguous because the word calor, from which it is taken, signifies both the matter of heat, and the sensation of heat. To obviate this objection, Dr. Pearson proposes to substitute the word calorific. We regret the proposed amendment for three reasons. 1st. It violates a rule in the English language; for words ending in ific in that language are adjectives, or, at least, generic terms, as specific, terrific, beatific. 2d. Granting the objection its full force, it militates as much against calorific as caloric. For if calor signifies both the matter and sensation of heat, calorific (that is, causing calor) may signify causing the matter of heat, or causing the sensation of heat, and therefore is as ambiguous as caloric. 3d. The word caloric is not ambiguous; it is not the same with calor, and can never be mistaken for it. It is a new specific word defined by the inventors; and therefore must always represent the substance they assigned it, and no other. Caloric, therefore, in our opinion, ought to remain.

As to the objections, started against azot, they proceed upon the erroneous supposition that a specific word can be the symbol of a quality or state, and therefore are of no force. It appears to us as good as nitrogen; but either will do. We prefer spelling the word without the final e, merely because it pleases our ear better. Etymologists will exclaim against us; but the word is now English, and ought to be pronounced and spelt like an English word. Suppose we were to adopt nitrogen merely to please certain chemists, where should we be when azot happens to be compounded? This is surely not impossible.

We object to the words molybdenium, chromium; molybdenum and chromum, please the ear better, and are conformable to the genera practice. It was certainly proper to make all the Latin names of the metals, end in um. But this had been done before by Bergman. We think that the word sylvanium should be given up, and sellarium adopted. Our reason is that Klaproth, who ascertained the nature of the metal, has certainly the best right to give it a name. Unless these claims are respected, there never can be an end of confusion. We have often been surprized at the strong rule, which Mr. Kirwan has laid down to himself, to make all his words terminate inite. We wish Dr. Pearson had not adopted so many of them in his table. The Latin names originally imposed are surely better; or if these are objected to let them only be deprived of their termination. We dislike the word baryt which has, in our opinion, a harsh sound: barytes, which has been adopted by almost all the British chemists, is far preferable. We think the word strontian is proper; it has been generally adopted on the continent. We neither see the propriety nor intention of changing it into strontites as Dr. Hope has done. Why did not Dr. Pearson adopt the word alumina rather than argil!? We object to this last word,

ecause

because the Latin of it is ambiguous, and must often occasion mistakes in perusing those authors who write in Latin.

We agree with Dr. Pearson, that some of the names of the alkalies are bad because they are ambiguous. This is particularly the case with potash, which has been generally adopted by British chemists. Potass, the word proposed by the framers of the Nomenclature, would remove the ambiguity; but it has an unpleasant sound. It is certainly, however, better than potash. Tartarin, the word proposed by Mr. Kirwan, is surely no improvement, and vegalkali, proposed by Dr. Pearson, is so uncouth, that there is no chance of its being adopted. Nor is this all. Veg-alkali is, in fact, a generic name, and as such conveys, as Klaproth observes, a false idea, which is an insuperable objection; by far the best word, for this alkali is lixiva, which was proposed by Dr. Black. It ought certainly to be adopted. There can be no objection to the word soda, and therefore it ought to remain. Ammonia, which was proposed by Dr. Black, is far preferable to ammoniac. We are happy to see it so generally adopted. We object, in toto, to the names for the basis of the acids, muriatic radicle, oxalic radicle, &c. Because it is substituting a phrase for a word, and because we have no proof that any such radicals exist, and therefore the names may mislead.

We have no observations to make on the second column.

Third column. We have no objections to our author's mode of spelling the word oxide. Perhaps oxid would be better, in order to render its analogy with acid still more striking. But the etymo logists would not agree to this violation of the laws of derivation. The doctor's account of the acids, which terminate in ic and ous, is rather carried too far. The authors of the Nomenclature seem to have been guided merely by the sound of the word, except in a few of the mineral acids. We object to Dr. Pearson's mode of spelling some of these acids. It is clear from the original Nomenclature, and even from this translation, that the terminations ic and ous were intended to be the same in every instance: and this was proper because these terminations are, in fact, generic terms. This rule has been adhered to in the case of acids ending in ic; but not in the other case. Thus we find in the table sulphureous acid: Here the termination is eaus, which is wrong. The word ought to have been sulphurous Sulphureous is besides an adjective, which has been long used in the English language; it cannot, therefore, be employed in the present case without ambiguity. For the same reason, tartareous, pyroligneous should be tartarous, pyrolignous. There is no oxy-sulphuric acid, the word ought therefore to be omitted. We approve much of the abbreviation, oxy-muriatic acid; it is equally distinct with oxygenated muriatic acid, and much more convenient. The word chromatic is surely wrong, it should be chromic.

Fourth column. We object to the whole Nomenclature of the nitrous gases. The object has evidently been to preserve something of the composition of the gases in their names; but this has not been accomplished. Gaseous oxide of azot, and nitrous oxide gas,

are

are composed each of oxygen and azot; but of different propor tions; these proportions are not indicated here; besides the intro duction of azot into the one and of nitrous in the other, has an awkward effect. But this is not our strongest objection to the names, they are instances of an improper use of the term oxide, which ought never to be tolerated, because it perverts the very intention of ge neric terms, by applying them without distinction to every thing. We would rather, therefore, employ the old Nomenclature here; only instead of dephlogisticated nitrous gas, we would substitute submitrous gas, using sub as Dr. Pearson has employed it, with a very happy effect, in other parts of the Nomenclature. Our names, therefore, here would be, 1. azotic, gas, 2. subnitrous gas, 3. nitrous gas, 4. nitrous acid gas. We approve highly of Dr. Pearson's mode of naming the sulphurated oxides.

Fifth column. We would rather distinguish the different genera of neutral salts by the terminations at and ite, writing sulphat, sul phite, nitrat, nitrite. This mode has been followed by the greater number of British writers. It makes the distinction between them better both to the eye and ear; it is at least as agreeable to the common practice of the language; and we are of opinion that the words, sulphat, nitrat are more suitable to our pronunciation than sulphate, nitrate. The use of the terms super and sub, here proposed, is very proper, and a very great improvement upon the original Nomenclature. Several of the old names of the neutral salts ought to be retained as well as the new, for the conveniency of writers; borax, alum, nitre, tartar for instance. These are preferable to the new names which are exceedingly tedious. They, however, will be very convenient and useful for teachers. We do not approve of the method, proposed by Dr. Pearson, for denominating triple salts. Soda tartrite of vegalkali, the instance he gives, is neither shorter nor plainer, nor less harsh than tartrite of potass and soda. Any ambiguity, which the common mode of naming would occasion, may be removed by connecting together the two bases with hyphens, as we have done in the present instance.

Sixth column. The words sulphuret, carburet are proper: but we object to phosphoret; it should be phosphuret, to preserve the analogy. The word axoturet is harsh, and at present unnecessary. When the alkalies and alkaline earths are decompounded, if they contain each but two ingredients, and if azot be an ingredient in each, then a generic term may be invented for denoting them all, and the specific names may be formed, by adding to the generic term, the name of the other ingredient, just as is done in the case of the neutral salts. But even in that case the old names should still be retained for the conveniency of writers. We think the word allay or alloy ought to be extended to all combinations of metals, with metals, and that the metal which exists in greatest abundance should be placed first, thus alley of gold and copper. No ambiguity can result from this, and it is absolutely necessary to have a term to denote these combinations. The word connubium, which Dr. Pearson considers as the same with amalgam and alloy is used in a much more exten