1820.] Scientific Intelligence. 391 



which was first detected by Scheele in urine, and which he 

 found to constitute the essential constituent of those urinary 

 calculi which he examined. M. Guy ton de Morveau had pre- 

 viously distinguished this substance by the name of litkic acid. 

 In consequence of this change there are two very distinct 

 substances in urine distinguished by nearly the same name ; viz. 



Urea, 

 Uric acid. 



The consequence which one would at first be disposed to 

 draw from this is, that nrea constitutes the base of uric acid, 

 and that the two substances are intimately related in their pro- 

 perties and composition. This is a conclusion which I have little 

 doubt has been drawn by young chemists. On that account it 

 is of importance to prevent it as much as possible. Dr. Marcet, 

 in his Treatise on Urinary Calcuh, has alluded to this defect in 

 the present nomenclature, and has endeavoured to correct it by 

 resuming the old name lithic acid instead of the newer term uric 

 acid, which has now got into general use. 



This undoubtedly gets rid of the ambiguity of names ; but I 

 do not think that it entirely cures the defect of nomenclature. 

 When the chemical nomenclature was contrived by Lavoisier, 

 Berthollet, Morveau, and Fourcroy, in 1787, they laid it down as 

 a law that all vegetable and animal principles were to be denoted 

 (as far as possible) by names ending in in ; as, for example, 

 gelatin, fibrin, asparagin, ulmin. I have sometimes thought that 

 this law might be followed, and yet vegetable substances distin- 

 guished from animal by making the former terminate in in, and 

 the latter in ine ; but I have not uniformly adhered to this 

 distinction. It is curious that Fourcroy, one of the contrivers of 

 the new nomenclature, should have deviated so much from laws 

 of his own making as to give the term uree, urea, to an animal 

 principle which exists in urine. Perhaps this deviation may 

 enable us to form a pretty shrewd guess at those chemists who 

 liad the chief share in the actual formation of the nomenclature ; 

 or perhaps Fourcroy found it difficult to contrive a term from 

 urine which should agree with the laws of the nomenclature ; 

 for urin or urine would neither have suited the French nor the 

 English language. Be that as it may, I think that the manifest 

 impropriety of the term urea, and its inconsistency with the laws 

 of the chemical nomenclature, ought to be considered as a suffi- 

 cient reason for discarding it altogether, and introducing a new 

 one. I am induced in consequence to propose the term nephrin, 

 as a very suitable appellation for the substance which has been 

 hitherto distinguished by the name of urea. This name, as the 

 reader will perceive, is derived from the kidneys, the organs 

 which secrete the peculiar substance in question. The two 

 bodies hitherto called urea, and uric acid, may be henceforth 



