mathematical and chemical signs in chemical equations, it must be admitted 

 that the symbol of a compound is universall} 7 regarded as the real body which 

 may be clothed with synonymes more or less expanded to suit the peculiar 

 views of different schools. 



Quite a serious derangement of the nomenclature has followed the introduc- 

 tion of the atomic notation. A majority of the old names have thus become 

 inappropriate ; and chiefly for this reason, many well-known European che- 

 mists, and nearly all American chemists, still prefer to use the old system 

 expressing combining proportions. No sweeping innovation which changes or 

 perverts the meaning of old terms, rendering old and familiar works on che- 

 mistry comparatively worthless, and which tends to eradicate fundamental 

 ideas, will be accepted by the present generation. How utterly futile would 

 be the unanimous resolve of a World's Convention to change the value of our 

 common numerals so as to represent a unit by the figure 2 ! Yet if they should 

 propose to leave the old signs undisturbed, and to use new characters having 

 the same numerical value with other important significations, the project could 

 perhaps be carried into practical operation. Thus in any science it will be found 

 most feasible to designate new views, or new structures, by new and appropriate 

 names. This subject has commanded the attention of all advanced chemists. At 

 the meetings of the London Chemical Society, the question has been discussed 

 by GRAHAM, WILLIAMSON, MILLER, BRODIE, FRANKLAND, ODLING, HOFMANN and 

 other distinguished members. GMELIN'S names, as modified by WATT^and his 

 compeers, seem to be received with most favor. WILLIAMSON, FOSTER and 

 WILLIAMS have suggested valuable alterations. One would, however, be safe 

 in predicting that while the ic and ous system predominates, the root of the 

 perplexity will not be reached. 



The nomenclature now presented is the result of an attempt to obviate the 

 continual embarrassment attending the prosecution of chemical studies. Failing 

 to remember the exact composition of certain compounds, the writer resorted 

 to mnemonical methods ; and, after repeated trials, devised, in the year 1850, 

 a system of words, generally unlike any found in dictionaries, which, with 

 certain modifications, he has constantly employed since that time. It was ori- 

 ginally adapted to the old classification of acids, bases and salts, but was so 

 arranged as to be most conveniently used in defining combinations of hydrogen 

 or a metal with a radical according to the binary system. It was also early 

 employed in explaining the now discarded Nucleus theory, as advocated by 

 LOZWIG in 1851. 



Although the importance of the Typical system of classification was clearly 

 set forth by HUNT in 1848 (Am. Jour. Science, V, 265; VI, 173), not until 

 after memorable experiments and discoveries by European chemists had de- 

 monstrated its great value, was the decision made to modify this nomenclature 

 so as to be used with facility in expressing the new views. In attempting to 

 take this step, however, another serious obstacle was encountered in the di- 

 versity of opinion regarding atomic weights. KOPP and REGXAULT had thrown 

 new light on the subject; yet chemists of the Unitary school still agreed with 

 the views originally advanced by GERHARDT, and recognized many metals, be- 

 sides silver and those of the alkaline class, as monatomic. In 1861, however, 

 GIBBS made it manifest that if the atomic weights of carbon, ox} T gen and sul- 

 phur be taken respectively at 12, 16 and 32, the received numbers of at least 



