of Chemical Philosophy and Nomenclature. 1 79 



to halogen bodies; I objected to the use of the word hydracid, 

 in which the electro-positive radical is made to act as if co- 

 ordinate with oxygen. 



Moreover, the termination in ide having been generally at- 

 tached to the electro- positive compounds of oxygen, acting as 

 bases, I condemned the employment of that termination, to 

 distinguish the electro-negative, and acid compounds of sul- 

 phur, selenium, and tellurium. I considered it inconsistent 

 to give precedence to the syllable designating the radical in 

 the acids formed with hydrogen ; as in hydrochloric, hydro- 

 bromic, hydriodic, hydrofluoric, hydrofluoboric, hydrofluo- 

 silicic, preferring the terms chlorohydric, bromohydric, iodo- 

 hydric, fluohydroboric, fluohydrosilicic, &c, in which I have 

 been sanctioned by Thenard and others. 



I proposed a definition of an acid, and a base, which I con- 

 ceived to be the only one which could be adopted, consistently 

 with the use made of those words by Berzelius, and other di- 

 stinguished chemists; and advanced that, agreeably to that 

 definition, his double haloid salts must be considered as simple 

 salts, severally formed of an acid and a base. 



I objected to his treating the words combustion, and oxy- 

 genation as synonymous. 



Having thus made the reader acquainted with the substance 

 of my criticisms upon the Berzelian nomenclature, I will sub- 

 join his letter in answer to them, and will then state, and en- 

 deavour to justify, the conclusions at which I have arrived. 



Letter from J. J. Berzelius of Stockholm, to R. Hare, M.D. 9 

 Professor of Chemistry in the University of Pennsylvania, 

 acknowledging the receipt of a Communication respecting 

 Nomenclature, and replying thereto. 



Sir, Stockholm, Sept. 23, 1834. 



I am very much obliged to you for the remarks, which, 

 under the date of June 21st, you had the friendship to com- 

 municate to me, respecting the nomenclature which I have 

 employed in my Treatise of Chemistry. 



I perceive that having contemplated chemical phaenomena 

 under different points of view, we differ as to the nomencla- 

 ture which is the most appropriate for their description. I 

 consider the combinations of metals with chlorine, bromine, 

 &c, as salts; whilst you, in accordance with Mr. De Bonds- 

 dorff, consider them as bases and acids, capable of forming 

 salts by their union. 



If it were expedient that chemical classification should be 

 dependent on the number of simple bodies which enter into 



2 A2 



