300 Note of the Editors on the j^recccUng -paper. 



inlnish their usefulness. We do not require abbreviations 

 of abbreviations. Mistakes arising from this cause are ab-eady 

 too numerous. How liable they would be to multiply were 

 we still further to complicate our systems of notation, may be 

 imagined by reading the following sentence from the abstract 

 already so often quoted ; where, speaking still of the ac- 

 tion of hydrated alkalies on various substances, it is said, 

 " Acetic aether gives hydrogen and acetic acid ; benzoic 

 aether gives hydrogen, benzoic and acetic acids ; iodide of 

 ethyl gives iodide of potassium and defiant gas, C^ Hg Ig 

 [should be I] + K = C4 H4 + Kr^[shouldbe I, andthedotover 

 the K omitted] + HO. This aether forms with chlorine ; chlo- 

 ride of ethyl and iodine is separated ; j*^ E F is exactly similar 

 to RF." Here neither R nor F are defined. 



I am, Sir, your obedient servant. 

 To R. Phillips, Esq., F.R.S. ^c. ^c. W. A. M, 



Marcli o, 1811. 



Note. 



We do not find in the communication of our Berlin Correspondents 

 any tiling implying unwillingness on the part of English chemists to receive 

 " new doctrines and new facts " from abroad. Messrs. Francis and Croft 

 merely offer to assist us in supplying information which the chemists of our 

 own country are, we believe, anxious to obtain. Whatever caution may be 

 necessary in the reception of new doctrines, correct information respecting 

 them must be desirable ; and still more so with regard to new fads. 

 Neither, if there are "inconsistencies in the reasonings" of Dumas and Stas, 

 is it logical to infer "that these are a sample of what we are generally to 

 meet with" among continental chemists ; some of whom, indeed, are able 

 opponents of those reasonings. It is our province to assist in bringing 

 them under examination. 



With regard to the remarks on the Symbolic Notation, we have to state 

 that our Correspondents are not accountable for any ambiguity which 

 may appear in the formula given in that portion of their communication 

 which appeared last month. Some of those formulic were altered by us, 

 with the intention to suit the views generally taken by English chemists. 

 In the continuation given in the present number, however, we have pre- 

 ferred leaving the symbols exactly as written by Messrs, Francis and Croft ; 

 and to this practice v.'e intend in future to adhere. As to the termi- 

 nology, we presume that in preparing the abstracts, they have retained 

 the terms employed in the original papers, except in cases where the 

 English equivalents were obvious. For want of uniformity in orthogra- 

 phy we are alone to blame. Much diversity exists among our chemical 

 writers ; but our practice has been to prefer, as usual in English, the 

 Latin orthography of Greek terms, and not to present them in a French 

 garb. The advantage of forming terms from the Greek is lost by so disfi- 

 guring them as that they are scarcely to be recognised. We therefore 

 prefer ajther, rethyl, &c., more especially as we have not, like the French, 

 the accented c to substitute for the diphthong ; nor the a as in German. 

 We are fully aware that with the present immense influx of new names, 

 the subject of chemical nomenclature requires strict critical supcn'ision, 

 and we trust it may engage the further attention of Professor W'hewell, 

 who has so ably treated certain parts of the subject in his Philosophy of 

 the Inductive Sciences. — Edit. 



