On Chemical Nomenclature. — 265 
The difference between the oxysalts, and the halosalts is very ea- 
sily illustrated by formule. In K|F F—fluoride of potassium, there 
is but one single line of substitution, that is to say, that of K|FF, 
whilst in KOOOOS (sulphate of potash) there are two, KI\OOOOS 
and KO|OOOS of which we use the first in replacing one metal by 
another, for instance, copper by iron; and the second in replacing 
one oxide by another. 
I do not know what value you may attach to this development of 
the constitution of the oxysalts (which applies equally to the sulpho- 
salts and others:) but as to myself, I have a thorough conviction, 
that there is therein, something more than a vague speculation ; since 
it unfolds to us an internal analogy in phenomena, which, agreeably 
to the perception of our senses, are externally analogous. If these 
phenomena are to be considered agreeably to the ideas of Mr. De 
Bondsdorff, how does it happen that sulphur, phosphorus, arsenic, 
and other radicals of the strongest oxacids, when united with chlorine, 
bromine, iodine, &c., do not combine with chlorides,* bromides, 
&c., of the metals of the alkalies and of the earths; whilst the chlo- 
ride and bromide of potassium combine easily with those of magne- 
sium, iron,and manganese. Should then the chloride of magnesium, 
or that of manganese, be a stronger acid than the chloride of sulphur, 
or chloride of phosphorus? How is it consistent with these ideas 
that we can obtain crystallized salts as well with, as without water, 
of combination, composed of chloride of calcium and of oxalate, or 
of acetate of lime? Should the oxysalt be here the acid, or the 
base? J have now displayed to you, the considerations which have 
guided me, and which I think are not destitute of foundation. 
I cheerfully admit that it would be preferable to employ the word 
chlorohydric, instead of hydrochloric. My motive for retaining this 
last, is, that I have ventured to propose a new nomenclature in a 
language foreign to me, in which it was inexpedient to make changes 
which could be avoided without inconvenience. I also agree with 
you, that we ought not to use combustible and oxidable, as having 
the same meaning. I have deserved your strictures for this incon- 
sistency in my language ; but I must suggest as an apology, that the 
two words were formerly used as synonymous, and that the work, 
in which you have recently noticed this oversight, was first published 
in 1806, haying been from time to time remoulded for new editions, 
* I have translated chlorure, flaorure, bromure, by chloride, fluoride, and bro- 
mide, agreeably to the practice of the British chemists. 
34 
Vou. XXXII.—No. 2. 
