ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS. 125 



one for inorganic bodies introduced by Lavoisier and his associates, which 

 with all its faults has wonderfully facilitated the advancement of the science, 

 met with rapid success, it must be recollected, that the innovations then 

 made did not extend beyond a few bodies, and those for the most part of 

 recent discovery ; whilst even in their case the names imposed were by no 

 means so arbitrary, or so destitute of meaning, as are those of Gmelin. 



Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen, comprise perhaps the entire 

 catalogue of new names for elementary substances devised by the French 

 chemists, and in every one of these the Greek or Latin root of the word 

 suggests some at least of the chemical properties or relations of the body 

 itself. 



It is indeed true, that the changes which they introduced pervade the whole 

 of chemistry, because the elements to which new names had been assigned 

 enter so largely into combination with others; but the principles upon 

 which they proceeded in the innovations proposed were nevertheless in 

 themselves few and simple. 



Gmelin's method, on the contrary, involves the rejection of the entire 

 system of names in common use, and requires moreover such a perfect fami- 

 liarity with those which he has substituted, as should enable us to perceive at 

 a glance the import of any combination of them which may occur, and to 

 appreciate the value of each of the inflexions to which the terms are subject, 

 according to the number of atoms which the constituents of the substance 

 designated may severally present. What chemist, for instance, would tolerate 

 such an expression as natan-qfin for sulphate of soda, or follow the lecturer 

 when he spoke of lenevine for wine-alcohol ? I have no idea, therefore, that 

 a nomenclature formed upon such a principle as that of Gmelin will ever 

 meet with general adoption, or can be regarded in any other light than as an 

 exercise of ingenuity, or as a kind of philosophical puzzle. 



With respect to the other scheme proposed by Gerhardt in his ' Precis de 

 Chemie Organique,' I perhaps need only remark, that such modifications as he 

 has recommended in the established method are foundedupon his own peculiar 

 theoretical views, and upon the system of classification which he has thought 

 fit to adopt with respect to organic bodies. Whatever therefore may be its 

 merits, it does not meet the object I have in view, which aims at nothing 

 further than rendering the existing nomenclature more consistent with itself, 

 and with the principles agreed upon by the great body of scientific chemists 

 who are employed upon this department of the subject, and which therefore 

 excludes the adoption of any alterations which imply the recognition of 

 views not yet generally assented to. Moreover, the classification of organic 

 substances with which Gerhardt has set out, is entirely artificial, and one 

 which places bodies belonging to the same type often in the most distant parts 

 of his system ; nor has it, to compensate for this defect, the same recom- 

 mendation which the Linnaean system possesses in Botany, namely, that of 

 enabling us promptly to distinguish the object denoted ; since the composition 

 of the body, upon which its place in the series depends, can only be ascer- 

 tained after a minute and laborious investigation. 



But dissatisfied as I may be with the methods hitherto proposed, it is 

 foreign from my intention to suggest any new principle of naming organic 

 substances, convinced as I am that none, except the great masters of the 

 science, who possess influence enough to give laws in the first instance to a 

 numerous band of pupils, and a general reputation so extensive as to cause 

 them to be submitted to afterwards over a much wider circle, have a right to 

 expect that a patient hearing would be given to them, were they to under- 



