1 INTRODUCTION. 



trary. The only idea that arose was to select terms that 

 might indicate subdivisions of the Domains, and still, if pos- 

 sible, preserve some relation with chemistry, upon which the 

 whole science of mineralogy ultimately depends. In Egypt, 

 universally known to have been the parent country of che- 

 mistry, the small provinces or districts were distinguished by 

 Nome. an appellation which the Greeks have translated NOMES, 

 from a word simply implying divisions But the word may 

 be said to have remained sacred to Egypt, not having been 

 transferred to the provinces of any other country. This 

 word had also the advantage of subdivisions easy to the me- 



Micronome* morv > in Hyponome and Micronome, implying greater and 

 lesser subdivisions of the Nome. 



Such were the reasons for the preference of this arbitrary 

 term to any other arbitrary term -, and as it cannot be too 

 often repeated that the chief use of any system of natural 

 history is to assist the memory, it will perhaps be difficult to 

 find a term less objectionable ; at least, though the plan has 

 been deeply reconsidered for many years, none such has arisen 

 to the author : but perhaps candid disquisition, and literary 

 collision, may produce some more appropriate appellation, 

 which he would be the first to adopt, having no view but the 

 advancement of the science. Even in lithology and metal- 

 logy, Nomes will be found preferable to the Groups or Fa- 

 milies of the Wernerians, denominations chiefly belonging to 

 animated nature j and the clear metallic divisions of Thom- 

 son, Alloys, Sulphurets, Oxyds, and Salts, may well be styled 

 Nomes } for the term being arbitrary there can be no ob- 

 jection to its occasional introduction even under Domains 

 which are substantial. 



Terms some- Above all it must not be forgotten, that in no science, 

 except those that are mathematical, can the terms admit 

 mathematical precision. In the other kingdoms of natural 

 history it is well known that disputes frequently arise whe- 

 ther a new object form a genus, a species, or a variety. 

 How much more vague, therefore, must be the language of 

 mineralogy, which depends on the infinite modifications, of 



