Conversations on Mineralogy. 155 
ceeding authors to adopt a similar method for teaching the 
rudiments of the other sciences. 
Amongst these, Miss Delvalle Lowry has lately favoured us 
with the Conversations on Mineralogy. Whether she has fol- 
lowed in the path of her deservedly celebrated prototype, passz- 
bus equis, or talked as much to the purpose on the subject of 
mineralogy, as Mrs. Marcet has done on that of chemistry, it 
now becomes our business to inquire, by examining the contents 
of the two little volumes before us. Of this we are convinced, 
that every work, which, like Mrs, Marcet’s, tends to accustom 
the young mind to a connected train of thinking, and by easy 
and familiar, yet not frivolous, means, brings it acquainted with 
the sciences, does almost incalculable good, and the sooner 
such works are put into the hands of young persons, after they 
have attained their ninth or tenth year, the better; for as we 
have no faith in the wild reveries of craniological infatuation, 
we are of opinion that the early impressions of infancy often 
retain a lasting influence on the mind, and that the plaything 
philosophy of the nursery, may stamp the future character of a 
Newton or a Cavendish. 
But to return to Miss Lowry. 
- The first volume contains nine conversations. The subject of 
the first is introductory, and consists principally of the Defini- 
tion of Mineralogy,—the distinction between it and geology,— 
its relation to chemistry and the elements of minerals. In the 
definition, mineralogy is said to be divided into oryctognosy, 
“ora knowledge of minerals by their external characters,” 
chemical mineralogy, and geology. 
There is more parade than profit in this distinction. Mine- 
ralogy and geology are quite sufficient without oryctognosy—a 
lately introduced and bad term, derived from oguccw, fodio, 
and yivwoxw, nosco, meaning, if it mean any thing, the science 
of digging, and consequently as applicable “ to potatoes and 
carrots,” as to metals and stones. We notice this, because it 
may mislead the young reader, in writing for whom more than 
common care should be taken not to introduce terms calcu- 
lated to give false ideas, (nor new ones at all, unless absolutely 
necessary,) which, if etymology have any thing to do with the 
application of a term, is eminently the case here, for by no 
possible construction can oryctognosy (etymologically) be made 
to signify “a knowledge of minerals by their external charac- 
ter.” A similar complaint might be made against some of our 
author’s chemistry; for instance, speaking of diamonds, she 
says—“ You will hardly credit me when I tell you, that they 
are nothing more than charcoal ;” and immediately afterwards, 
“We are certain that they are charcoal, though not in the 
state in which we generally see it.” Weare certain, on the 
contrary, that they are not charcoal. Charcoal and diamond 
