April lo, 1890] 



NATURE 



535 



generally adopted; the author of this new "uniform system," 

 however, has chosen the other course. 



If the author of the "uniform system " had been contented 

 with tabulating the system of transliteration which has been so 

 long in use, he would have earned the gratitude of those devoted 

 to literature, as well as of those who cultivate science. As it is, 

 I am afraid he has merely given the world of art and letters an 

 opportunity for gibes at what they are sometimes pleased to call 

 the narrowmindedness and pedantry of scientific men. 



I may, perhaps, be permitted to give a few examples of the 

 defects of the new system ; r in Russian has three sounds, one 

 nearly resembling the English g, another very like //, and a third 

 guttural sound, to which there is nothing analogous in our 

 tongue. The author proposes to get over this by transliterating 

 r by gh!! The eminent chemist Hemilian thus becomes 

 masked as Ghemilian, whilst Gustavson appears as Ghustavson, 

 and a well-known political character, Gortchakofif, is altered to 

 Ghorchakov'. For comparison, I give these names, and a few 

 others, as transliterated in accordance with the two systems : — 



Present system, 



Hemilian 



Gustavson 



Gortchakoff .. 



Alexeeff 



Gregoreff 



Ogloblin 



Mendeleeff 



Chroushtchoff .. 



Michael 



Joukovsky 



New system. 



Ghemilian. 



Ghustavson'. 



Ghorchakov', 



Aleksyeev'. 



Ghrighor'ev'. 



Oghloblin. 



Mendelyeev'. 



Khrushchov'. 



Mikhail. 



Zhukovskic. 



Geographical names are even more weird ; for example, it 

 Ijecomes somewhat difificull to recognize under the disguise of 

 Nizhnii Novghorod and Volgha, the town of Nijni Novgorod and 

 the River Volga. Such words as "Journal" and "Chemie," 

 when occurring in titles, can be at once recognized ; this can 

 scarcely be said of them if the new system of transliteration is 

 used, as they become "zhurnal" and "Khimi?" respectively. 



It is much to be regretted that the Royal Society, the Linnean 

 Society, and the Geological Society should have pledged them- 

 selves to adopt this novel "system of transliteration," instead 

 of adhering to the one which has been so long in use. As a 

 Fellow of the Royal Society, I feel very great regret that the 

 Council are going to adopt this system in their publications, as 

 it will seriously detract from the value of their supplementary 

 " Catalogue of Scientific Papers" now in the press, at all events 

 as far as Russian literature is concerned. 



No protest of mine, however, can be half so forcible as the 

 unconscious sarcasm of the author himself, in his paper, where 

 he says that "an expression of grateful thanks is due" to two 

 Russians " who have assisted in the arrangement of the system." 

 The names of the Russians are then given, and if my readers 

 will take the trouble to study them by the light of the table for 

 transliteration by the new system, he will see how they express 

 their appreciation of the author's labours by carefully avoiding 

 ■every one of the novelties he has introduced. 



Charles E. Groves, 

 Editor of the yournal of the Chemical Society. 



Hurlington House, March 17. 



Having in view the increasing importance of Russian to 

 literary and scientific men, it becomes very desirable to have a 

 uniform system of transliteration, such as that recently proposed 

 in your columns. 



IJut, in order to be useful, everyone must agree to conform to 

 it, nor should any such system be adopted off-hand without full 

 discussion of any points which may seem susceptible of 

 improvement. 



It seems to me objectionable to indicate the semi-vowels (i. and 

 !•) by a simple ', and to omit them altogether at the end of a word. 

 They really correspond, to a certain extent, to our c (mute) ; 

 and 1 would suggest that it would be better to indicate them by 

 a full letter — perhaps c for one and I for the other. 



March 11. W. F. KiRBY. 



One or two points in the criticisms on this subject call for 

 some notice before the publication of a more detailed account of 

 the system. 



As regards Mr. Kirby's suggestion, the transliteration of the 

 semi-vowels was discussed, but it was not thought advisable to 

 exaggerate their importance by using two letters for them, 

 especially as their use is becoming discontinued in Russia. 



When recommending a uniform system, we did not imagine 

 that Mr. Groves or anyone else would infer that this was 

 intended to limit the right of Russians who d^^ ell in England 

 or who write in English to spell their names as they please ; 

 we have not asked Messrs. Kelly to apply it to all Russian 

 names in the Post Office Directory or the Court Guide ; we 

 should never think of altering such names in ordinary corre- 

 spondence. Even in catalogues and records, for which this 

 system is intended, the familiar form should of course be quoted 

 with a cross reference, as recommended by us in the clause 

 dealing with proper names. 



Mr. Groves asks why we have not tabulated " the system which 

 has been in use in England for about a century. " Our eflforts began 

 with an attempt to discover such a system, and resulted in the 

 tabulation of a large number of systems, including that employed 

 by Mr. Groves in the Journal of the Chemical Society ; since, 

 however, no two authors agree in the English symbols intended 

 to represent either the sounds or letters of Russian words, we 

 endeavoured to frame a system combining as far as possible the 

 features of those already in use in England and America. 



We are much obliged to Mr. Groves for supplying further 

 illustrations of the desirability of using gh for r ; the letter has, 

 of course, more than the three sounds to which he limits it. 



The uniformity of "the system which has been so long in 

 use " may be illustrated by the following examples, in which we 

 confine ourselves to the names of chemists, and to the words 

 quoted by Mr. Groves : — 



Consulting the " Imperial Gazetteer," Lippincott's "Gazet- 

 teer," and Keith Johnston's " Atlas " alone, we find Nijni,Nijnei, 

 Nishnii, Nizhnee, Nijnii, and Nischnii-Novgorod. 



One journal is given in Bolton's "Catalogue of Chemical 

 Journals " as 



Zhurnal russkova khimicheskova i fiztcheskova ; 

 in the Geological Record as 



Jurnal rosskoi chimiteheskago i phizitcheskago ; 



and in Scudder's " Catalogue of Serials " as 



Zhurnal ; russkoye khimitcheskoye i fizitcheskoye. 



Hence it is difficult to see why Nizhnii and Zhurnal should be 

 unintelligible. 



In the Royal Society Catalogue, the Geological Record, and 

 Chemical Society's Journal, the same name is spelt Jeremejew, 

 JeremejefT, JeremeefT. Which of these words represents the 

 pronunciation ? 



In the Chemical Society's Journal, Wroblewski and Flawitzky 

 correspond to the Wroblevsky and Flavitzsky of Armstrong and 

 Groves' " Organic Chemistry." 



The same journal frequently quotes the name MarkownikofT 

 where the same Russian letter (and sound) '\> denoted both by re 

 and^ while in the examples of Mr. Groves it is also repre- 

 sented by V ; here, of course, and in similar cases, the name 

 comes through a German channel. 



Mr. Groves transliterates a few names ; since, however, in 

 his " rational " system one Russian letter has more than one 

 English equivalent {i\ ff), and one English letter {e) has more 

 than one Russian equivalent, while the sound is not correctly 

 represented {o, e), it is obvious that this is neither "rational " 

 nor a system (it does not profess to be "empirical"; perhaps 

 Mr. Groves will now call it the " graphic method"). 



Since, moreover, the system recommended by Mr. Groves is 

 not used by him in the Chemical Society's Journal, we hope 

 that he may yet see his way to adopting the one which has now 

 been accepted by so many of the leading English Societies. 



II. A. M. 

 J. W. G. 



" Like to Like " — a Fundamental Principle in Bionomics. 



The following letter has been intrusted to me for seeing 

 through the press, and therefore I deem it desirable to state that 

 it does not constitute the writer's reply to Mr. Wallace's criticism 

 of his paper op "Divergent Evolution." This reply, as pre- 

 viously stated (Nature, vol. xl. p. 645), will be published by 

 him on some future occasion. 



