26 METVrOIR OF WERNER. 



rivals. But the conduct of some of his followers 

 atlmits of no excuse, who attempted, with an ill-di- 

 rected zeal, which he took every opportunity of re- 

 probating, to depreciate a series of truths with which 

 lie had made them too little acquainted. A con- 

 trary proceeding would have been greatly more pro- 

 per, for it is necessary to unite and combine the 

 results of the two methods. Far from being opposed 

 to each other, they are absolutely the same in spirit, 

 being in reality but two branches from the same stem. 

 Both of them, without denymg that species depend, 

 in some respects, on composition, are too ready to 

 establish them without sufficiently consulting che- 

 mistry. They assume for them, tacitly at least, a 

 principle of in'Mviduality which is not inherent in 

 the ma^tfer that composes them. But although che- 

 mistry reproaches both with sometimes establishing 

 species gratuitously, she is obliged at the same time 

 to acknowledge, that they have often anticipated her, 

 by indicating distinctions in substances which she 

 was unable to detect by her analysis, till after the 

 fact had been announced. 



The only difference is, that each of these two 

 great mineralogists. gives too exclusive a preponder- 

 ance to the characters which have been most the ob- 

 ject of his study. 



Haiiy, conceiving crystallization as alone worthy 

 of being compared with analysis, has recourse to 

 more rigorous and scientific methods, but which per- 

 mit many substances to escape notice. 



