as a branch of Natural Uialory^ i^c. 213 



would be common to all the species of which the genus Iron 

 is composed, in which are seen brought together instances of 

 properties so different from each other, that the minerals seem 

 arranged under that head rather for the' purpose of showing 

 tlie great variety of forms, of physical and chemical properties, 

 colours, &c. imder which unorganized matter may be seen^ 

 than for connecting particular substances by their most nu- 

 merous or most striking analogies ? Except some trifling ana^ 

 logies in specific gravity and hardness, what are the common 

 ties that bind together minerals so essentially different in all 

 their constituent parts as are the members composing the orders 

 Haloide and Baryte of Mohs, in the first of which the sulphates 

 and carbonates of lime are united to the fluate of alumina;, and, 

 in the second, the carbonates of iron and of manganese to the 

 silicate of zinc, the tungstate of lime, the sulphates of strontian 

 and of barytes, and the phosphate, chromate, and molybdate of 

 lead. 



§ 4. In instituting an analytical inquiry into the causes of 

 so great and essential differences as are here presented between 

 the methods actually employed in pursuing the study of organ- 

 ized bodies and our present systems of mineralogy, the result of 

 such an analysis has not led us to the conclusion to which some 

 celebrated chemists have arrived, that mineralogy is not a branch 

 of natural history, and that the study of inorganized bodies is 

 but a portion of chemistry, and, consequently, can be prosecut- 

 ed only according to the methods and the mode of reasoning 

 generally employed in that science. Still less do we agree in 

 opinion with a distinguished chemist, that, in considering mine- 

 rals, the purposes and functions of natural history and of che- 

 mistry come to be the very same. 



§ 5. On the contrary, it has appeared to us that the reason 

 why mineralogy has hitherto occupied so low a station when 

 contrasted with botany and zoology, is to be found, first, In an 

 ill-defined conception and distinction of the purposes and mode 

 of proceeding in natural history and chemistry in the considera- 

 tion of the same beings, whether organized or inorganized ; 

 secondly, In an ill-defined conception of what ought to be 

 the real objects of inquiry and study of natural history in the 

 inorganized, as it is in the organized world. It is to the er- 



