"witk Remarlcs on Prof.Whewell's Views, 183 



It is with the view of furthering the ultimate and, I hope, 

 speedy estabHshment of some one systematic arrangement, 

 that I have been induced to occupy a short space in your 

 valuable Journal with the present paper, which, although the 

 system promulgated in it should not be perfect, may yet be 

 of service, as affording some useful hints to others more fitted 

 for the final settlement of this most desirable and useful ob- 

 ject. 



On the first consideration of this subject, I was led to ima- 

 gine that abbreviations of the English nomenclature would 

 be more simple to the English student, and would be more 

 readily understood and applied by him ; but upon further re- 

 flection I was convinced that the Latin symbols, as selected 

 by Berzelius, would be far preferable, on account of their 

 having been in frequent use, more particularly amono- the 

 Continental chemists and mineralogists, for some years, and 

 also from their conciseness and simplicity. But (with one ex- 

 ception, which will be stated hereafter,) nothing more, I think, 

 of Berzelius's system should be adopted, than the symbols of 

 the elementary bodies. In the connection of these elements with 

 each other, the methods generally adopted by Sir John F. W, 

 Herschel, and subsequently followed by Professor Whewell in 

 its principal features, — namely, the plus signs for the formation 

 of compounds, and the use of brackets or ties, — must be taken 

 to form the basis of a system with any claims to mathematical 

 consistency: — an example will show more clearly the method 

 according to which these are employed. Take, for instance, the 

 octohedral copper pyrites, composed of two proportions of sul- 

 phuret of copper and one proportion of sulphuret of iron ; this 

 will be indicated thus, 2 (S + Cu) + (S + Fe). Although this 

 part of the subject has been cursorily alluded to in the former 

 part of this paper, and the arguments used by Prof. Whewell 

 briefly stated, yet I cannot avoid noticing in this place, that 

 in a subsequent part of Professor Whewell's essay, he appears 

 to have entirely forgotten the severe strictures that he had 

 passed on Berzelius as to the want of algebraic consistency; and 

 also his own observation (page 44'2), that " the combinations of 

 ingredients which make up compounds are clearly of the na- 

 ture of additions, and never can have any analogy with the 

 multiplication of the numbers expressing the components; they 

 therefore ought by no means to be represented by that com- 

 bination of symbols which denotes multiplication." And again, 

 at the 18th line of the same page, " there can be no doubt of 

 tlic exceeding impropriety, I might say absurdity, of such a 

 kind of symbols." Now, in direct contradiction to these obser- 

 vations, ProJcssor Whewell proposes to represent the oxides of 



