50 TRANSACTIONS OF THE [JAN. 25, 
of language. I need make no excuse for occupying your thoughts 
for a short time in the consideration of this general subject. 
One of the most noticeable things 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 deuarirys, ‘hematite,’ and 
arxaBaorctis, ‘alabaster.’ Such forms were also used by the Romans, 
and we have in Pliny 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 source, or the locality from which it was 
derived; as payryres, a mineral from Magnesia. Or, to speak of 
those already mentioned, acuarirys iS a mineral resembling blood, 
from the color of its powder ; aaaSacrires, A mineral from hich a 
vessel called an alabastron was cut, siderites, from otézpos, ‘iron,’ 
because it contains it, steatitis, from ozéaros, ‘ of fat,’ because it feels 
greasy, and molochites, from waaay, ‘mallows,’ alluding to its green 
color. 
All scientific works were written in Latin up to a very recent 
date, and as there was no chemistry to show differences 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 necessarily be classed 
together. Pliny’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 
avdoc, ‘a Stone,’ ought here to be mentioned, as it was a genuine 
attempt to introduce a distinguishing mark for mineral names, 
which, if successful, would have been of great benefit to mineral 
nomenclature e, 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 
