ON A METEOROLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 51$ 



There was surely no occasion to deprecate censure. In This free foe 

 common with the whole public, Dr. B- has just the same anyo0 ** 

 liberty to reject the nomenclature, which I had to propose it ; 

 and from the care with which he avoids* using a single term of 

 mine, I perceive he intends to avail himself of this. Should 

 it prove, that it is to make way ultimately for something of 

 his own, I hope to entertaiu his attempt with the imparti- 

 ality which the interests of science require. Jn the mean 

 time I may be allowed to say something in behalf of my 

 system, which I shall do the more readily, as it will give 

 an opportunity of meeting his former objections. 



The system in question imposes names on seven modifies*- The system 

 tions of cloud, only : but the*e divisions are, in effect, so ex P Iamc< * 

 many genera, some of which comprehend many species ; if 

 indeed it be right to apply these terms to the evanescent 

 forms of our subject, which occur at uncertain and some* 

 times very distant intervals, and run through gradations 

 so delicate, and combinations so varied, that the leisure 

 of a long life might not more than suffice accurately to 

 observe and describe them. In the interval since 1804, I 

 have not seen sufficient cause to disturb my original plan 

 by adding or suppressing modifications. It is not that I am 

 vain enough to deem it perfect, but I believe it answers 

 the intended purpose. 



In the present infant state of meteorology, and until these Multiplication 

 or some other general distinctions shall be adopted and pracr ° f * erl ?i S not 

 tically understood, I do not apprehend it will be of advan- 

 tage to multiply terms, especially such as, being referable to 

 jjo system, are applied to complicated appearances, which 

 must be analysed before they can be clearly understood. 



The materials, however, for specific distinctions, will ac? till moie spe- 



cumulate in proportion as accurate observers increase, and c,fic distincti< 

 c . .„. , „ A . on* are noted. 



it is matter ot lndifterence to me, who firft imposes appro? 



priate names on wel) ascertained and well defineel species of 

 combinations. 



As to the erroneous hypothesis, on which I am said to pro r Mr. DaIton»$ 

 eeed, it must be that of Dalton on the constitution of the hypothesis 

 atmosphere, which I used in aid of my explanations, or ra- 

 ther speculations, on the causes of the phenomena. If 

 f)r. B. will turn to the article Cioud, in Kees's Cyclopcedia, 



he 



