50 TRANSACTIONS OF THE [jAN. 25, 



of lan^uag-e. I need make no excuse for occupying- your thoughts 

 for a short time in tlie consideration of this general subject. 



One of the most noticeable thing's about mineral names is the 

 lack of uniformity in their terminations. While the large majority 

 of them end in -ite, there are many in -ine, while -ane, -ase, -ose, and 

 several others have been often used. It is to be regretted that the 

 termination -ite has not been universally adopted, for it has been so 

 far adopted as to be the generally accepted one for such names. It 

 has the sanction of antiquity, for it was used by the old Greek 

 writers in the forms -ites, or -itis, as in di^uatiV*??, 'hematite,' and 

 a'kalSdatctia, 'alabaster.' Such forms were also used by the Romans, 

 and we have in Fliny siderites, ' lodestone,' steatitis, 'soapstone,' 

 molochites, 'malachite,' and many others. These forms are un- 

 doubtedly the source of the termination -ite now in use, as they "are 

 the earliest known terminations. Such names were given by the 

 ancients as noting some property or use of the mineral, or some- 

 times designating its soui'ce, or the locality from which it was 

 derived; as fiayv^tii, a mineral from Magnesia. Or, to speak of 

 those already mentioned, aifxatitrii is a mineral resembling blood, 

 from the color of its powder; a?.ai3a(jririj, a mineral from which a 

 vessel called an alabastron was cut, siderites, from oi6»7po5, 'iron,' 

 because it contains it, steatitis, from driaros, ' of fat,' because it feels 

 greasy, and molochites, from ^axdzri, 'mallows,' alluding to its green 

 color. 



All scientific works were written in Latin up to a very recent 

 date, and as there w^as no chemistry to show dif!erences in composi- 

 tion, there was no real progress in mineralogy. External characters 

 alone were used as means of distinguishing minerals from each 

 other, and those that looked alike must necessarilv be classed 

 together. Plinv's names were sufficient for all the uses of science 

 down to the 16th century. There had hardly been a name added, 

 even by Agricola, whose large works were published 1529 to 1546. 

 The name fluor is perhaps his only new^ one, and that he probably 

 did not originate, but took from the vocabulary of the furnace-men, 

 who used it in smelting their ores. Certain minerals in general use 

 had their common names in various languages, but there were few 

 of these. 



The use of the termination -lite, in German -lith, from the Greek 

 ^lOoc, 'a stone,' ought here to be mentioned, as it was a genuine 

 attempt to introduce a distinguishing mark for mineral names, 

 which, if successful, Avould have been of great benefit to mineral 

 nomenclature, as bringing in the desirable element of uniformity. 

 This also comes from antiquity, being found in the Greek. But 

 it never came into general use, and in later years is hardly used 

 except for euphony. There is an erroneous impression that the ter- 

 mination -ite is derived from this, which, as we have seen, is not the 

 case, being a much older form. 



Several attempts have been made to give systematic names to 

 minerals on some such principle as is used in other branches of 



