[ 68 ] 



be atfirms tnat the bsjt names are Juch as mdicate the cQmpofition or 

 fome ejfential property, but of this fort he gives no example, nor 

 rejeds any old names merely on this account ; on the contrary 

 where exprejjlve names cannot eafily be had, he tells us it is better 

 apply fome that convey no determinate expreffion, p. 259, arid 

 this is often the cafe where different proportions or numerous 

 ingredients are to be denoted. 



Hence I am far from rejefling, but on the contrary applaud 

 the ingenuity of the inventors of the terminations of at and ite 

 to denote the different proportions of oxygen in the acids con- 

 tained in different compounds, 2ls fiilphats, Julphites, nitrats and 

 nitrites, &c. as fuch general names were undoubtedly wanting 

 and the old fchool afforded none. But the welcome ad ;Tii(rion of 

 thefe does not require nor imply the difmiffal of fuch of the old 

 as were faultlefs and enfranchifed by prefcription. 



An highly valued friend fuggefted' to me, that the ufe of the 

 old names was a departure from the fyilem on which the new- 

 denominations were founded. I replied that fyflems were the 

 creatures of convenience, and fhould be adhered to only as far as 

 they promoted it; nitre, epfom, borax, &c. are much fhorter (and 

 equally well known) than nitrated pot afh or fulphat of magnefia, 

 and Lavoifler himfelf preferves the name borax ; he might as well 

 have preferved that of epfom. 



The 



