On the Arrangement of Mineral Collections. 235 



P. S. Although not disposed to mix up the discussion of symbols 

 with the present subject ; yet, having mentioned the importance of 

 symbolic explanation, it becomes right for me to add, that those in- 

 troduced in the work quoted possess neither the analytical explicit- 

 ness of the chemical symbols of Berzelius, nor the perpetuality of 

 his mineralogical ones ; which, recording the elements only as pro- 

 portionals to the units of oxygen with which they are combined, are 

 independent of theory, and express the same compound in all times 

 and countries, under all possible differences of atomistic hypothesis. 



So long, however, as they are confined to the book, being explained 

 by it, it is only one lesson the more for us to learn. But if they go 

 beyond it ; and particularly, if they are to be, as they have been, 

 adopted in your Records, to which we look for our knowledge of the 

 progress of foreign chemistry ; and where, consequently, one set may 

 be found clashing with another; may not the innovation be alike 

 injurious to the cause of science, and to the value of your labours ? 



Note. — I have only space to observe that the reasoning of my in- 

 genious correspondent does not convince me of the advantage of 

 making the chemical subservient to what is termed (I think im- 

 properly) the natural system of arrangement ; because, 1st. The ex- 

 ternal characters of minerals depend upon the nature and mode of 

 combination of the elements of which they are composed ; and, there- 

 fore, by looking to the former for a method of classification instead of 

 to the latter, we commit the logical inaccuracy of taking as the basis 

 of the system, an effect instead of a cause. 2d. Because I consider 

 minerals to be nothing else than salts ; and none have ever attempted 

 to arrange these according to their external properties, the only sure 

 test of their nature being chemical analysis ; and, 3d. Because a 

 mere knowledge of the external characters of compounds is useless, 

 and can only be considered as subservient to the grand object, of the 

 pursuit of mineralogy, viz., a knowledge of the chemical properties 

 of matter. The remark of Rose in the note alluded to (Records, 

 vol. ii. p. 44o.) obviously implies, that either Haiiy or Berzelius 

 committed a mistake. — Edit. 



II. — Anecdote of a Bee. 



In a letter to the Editor, Mr. Tomlinson, of Salisbury, says, "I am 

 fond of bees, and keep a few hives. I have several curiosities re- 

 specting them. The results of hours of attentive watching, but I 

 can only venture to describe one, and I do not know if it has ever 

 been noticed before. On the 13th of May last, I was observing my 

 bees, and one had just returned from his flight for provender, and 

 was covered with pollen. He pitched about a foot from the entrance 

 of the hive, and, in hastening on, caught his leg in a crack of the 

 stool just wide enough to hold it securely, and his pulling only 

 served to fix the limb tighter. He was evidently annoyed, and for a 

 few minutes tried various means of extrication, and at length seemed 

 to get impatient, especially as other labourers were fast pouring in 

 with their loads. He then began leisurely and systematically to turn 



