528 HISTORY OF GEOLOGY. 



not speak of a Geological Nomenclature till we come to Werner 

 and Smith. The earlier mineralogists had employed names, often arti- 

 ficial and arbitrary, for special minerals, but no technical and constant 

 names for strata. The elements of Werner's names for the members 

 of his geological series were words in use among miners, as Gneiss 

 Grauivacke, Thonschiefer, Rothe todte liegende, Zechstein ; or arbitrary 

 names of the mineralogists, as Syenite, Serpentine, Porphyry, Granite. 

 But the more technical part of his phraseology was taken from that 

 which is the worst kind of name, arbitrary numeration. Thus he had 

 his first sandstone formation, second sandstone, third sandstone ; first 

 flbtz limestone, second flotz limestone, third flotz limestone. Such 

 names are, beyond all others, liable to mistake in their application, and 

 likely to be expelled by the progress of knowledge ; and accordingly, 

 though the Wernerian names for rocks mineralogically distinguished, 

 have still some currency, his sandstones and limestones, after creating 

 endless confusion while his authority had any sway, have utterly disap- 

 peared from good geological works. 



The nomenclature of Smith was founded upon English provincial 

 terms of very barbarous aspect, as Cornbrash, Lias, Gault, Clunch 

 Clay, Coral Rag. Yet these terms were widely diffused when his 

 classification was generally accepted ; they kept their place, precisely 

 because they had no systematic signification ; and many of them are 

 at present part of the geological language of the whole civilized world. 



Another kind of names which has been very prevalent among geolo- 

 gists are those borrowed from places. Thus the Wernerians spoke of 

 Alpine Limestone and Jura Limestone ; the English, of Kimmeridge 

 Clay and Oxford Clay, Purbeck Marble, and Portland Rock. These 

 names, referring to the stratum of a known locality as a type, were 

 good, as far as an identity with that type had been traced ; but when 

 this had been incompletely done, they were liable to great ambiguity. 

 If the Alps or the Jura contain several formations of limestone, such 

 terms as we have noticed, borrowed from those mountains, cease to be 

 necessarily definite, and may give rise to much confusion. 



Descriptive names, although they might be supposed to be the best, 

 have, in fact, rarely been fortunate. The reason of this is obvious ; 

 the mark which has been selected for description may easily fail to be 

 essential ; and the obvious connexions of natural facts may overleap 

 the arbitrary definition. As we have already stated in the history of 

 botany, the establishment of descriptive marks of real classes presup- 

 poses the important but difficult step, of the discovery of such marks. 



