52 TRANSACTIONS OF THE [JAN. 25, 
edition, 1844, he retains these Latin names as the scientific ones, 
as necessary to “a systematic idea of the science,’’ but adds, “ the 
shorter trivial names should, however, be retained, as more con- 
venient for common use.” In the third edition, 1850, however, 
Prof. Dana discards the whole system, not even retaining the 
names as synonyms. A system of arrangement was adopted that 
was understood to be temporary, while at the end of the work a 
chemical classification was suggested. In the later editions, this 
last has been perfected, and we now have an arrangement easy 
of reference and answering all purposes of classification, but from 
which all traces of the double Latinized forms of the Natural His- 
tory method have disappeared. This or some similar system is now 
generally followed by writers on mineralogy, much to the satisfac- 
tion of those who use their works. In 1847, Glocker published 
his work entitled ‘‘Generum et Specierum Mineralium Synopsis.” 
This is perhaps the most successful attempt at a systematic nomen- 
clature that has been made. He uses in general a Latinized form 
of the common name for the name of each species, with some de- 
scriptive word added. For varieties, he adds a third word, as is 
common in other branches of natural history. For instance, under 
Granatus, garnet, he gives three species: Ist. Granatus nobilis, 
precious garnet; 2d. Granatus hyacinthinus, cinnamon garnet; 
and 3d. Granatus vulgaris, common garnet, and under the latter, 
the varieties Granatus vulgaris fuscus, niger, viridis, flavus, and 
albidus. The work is in Latin, thus going back to the style of the 
scientific books of the last century. Recently, Prof. T. Sterry Hunt 
has devised a new Natural System, suggested indeed as early as 
1853, but as he does not give us new names for the species, a dis- 
cussion of it would be out of place here. His work is, however, 
exceedingly interesting, and will well repay examination by those 
who care to go further into that side of the general subject. 
In 1728 Dr. John Woodward published a work entitled ‘‘ Fossils 
of all Kinds Digested into a Method, Suitable to their Mutual Re- 
lations and Affinity, ? but it is a description from external characters 
only, and can hardly be called a scientific treatise. The first one 
that really deserves such a name is by the Swedish mineralogist, 
Wallerius, in 1747, which is arranged on a scientific plan, and gives 
us the earliest systematic description of minerals. Cronstedt, 
another Swedish chemist, ten years later gave us a work of much 
greater value, as he brought in chemical relations, as far as was 
possible in the crude state of that science. But few new names 
were added, for the study was still largely from the external side, 
and new species could not be recognized. With the discovery of 
oxygen in 1776, and the real beginning of the science of chemistry, 
a more correct basis for the differentiation of mineral species was 
found. This was aided by the application of scientific crystallo- 
graphy, the first edition of Delisle’s work appearing in 1772, and 
the second, in four volumes, in 1783. From this date new names 
were given to minerals as the result of more extended research in 
