1835.] Scientific Intelligence. 477 



IV. — On Chemical Symbols. 



In answer to the observations made upon chemical symbols, at p. 

 315 of this volume, two communications have been received, one from 

 a correspondent, whose name I should have wished to have accom- 

 panied the publication of his observations, and the other from Mr. 

 Hiley. 



1. My correspondent P proceeds, 



" Nothing having appeared in your Number just come out, in 

 accordance with your invitation to discuss some points relating to 

 symbols : a subscriber sends in the following summary, by way of 

 commencement, with a view of expediting the tables you promise us. 



" The general advantages of chemical symbols may be these. They 

 exhibit to the eye an atomic analysis of every compound, at once 

 concise and distinct ; and ultimate, except where organic acids or 

 bases enter into the composition. This is convenient for tabulating 

 bodies for comparison ; for exemplifying the changes which take 

 place in the re-action of compound bodies ; and, which is of more 

 consequence, obviates the need of circumlocution in our nomenclature, 

 a difficulty continually increasing with discoveries among the more 

 complex atomic combinations. 



" Their significations are theoretical, and consequently liable to 

 change, until the true integer atoms shall have been determined; a 

 consummation of which there is little hope at present, whilst the 

 thermic atoms of simple bodies come out J, J, or even Jth of those 

 deduced from analysis (Avogadro Records of General Scieiice,\\. 34.) 

 and another class of them gives the gaseous volume J of the analytical 

 atom as compared with oxygen, {ist Prin. ii. 478; and Dumas 

 Chim. app. aux arts, passim). Whether M. Ampere's distinction 

 into atoms, molecules, &c., [Ann. de Chim. et de Physique, April 

 1835), may eventually help to clear the subject, time will show. In 

 the mean while, it is for us to be content, to have our symbols keep 

 pace with our atomic knowledge, and that with the progress of 

 analysis. Our symbols and our terms must change together, and the 

 objection applies equally to both. 



" Conciseness is an object, as far as may be consistent with distinct- 

 ness ; not only on account of occupying less room, but as more 

 promptly entering the eye and the mind. And this condition is well 

 fulfilled by taking the mere initials of the names ; preferring the 

 Latin, as a common language. 



" This gives us, O, oxygenium ; H, hydrogenium ; C, carbon ; S, 

 sulphur ; but chlorine would again come to C. To distinguish here, 

 another letter must be affixed ; and CI, for chlorine ; Cu, for copper, 

 (Cuprum) ; Co, cobaltum ; Ca, calcium ; Ce, cerium ; Cr, chro- 

 mium, &c. ; adding but little to their length, makes them all clear. 



" So far chemists seem now almost agreed ; the doubts expressed 

 by you, apply to the super-imposed dots; for the atoms of oxygen K O 

 is not much less concise, and certainly clearer than K ; but K O S O^ 

 is rather confused, and K O + S O 3 a longer formula than K S ; 

 and when to K O + S O^ + 3 Al O + 3 S 03 + 24 H O is 

 superadded^ the formula becomes rather formidable compared with 



