TERMINOLOGY AND NOMENCLATURE. 287 



ness, do not agree in anything else a except in the 

 qualities common to all horses, and in whatever may 

 be the causes or effects of that particular colour. 



On the principle that there should be a name for 

 everything which we have frequent occasion to make 

 assertions about, there ought evidently to be a name 

 for every Kind ; for as it is the very nature of a Kind 

 that the individuals composing it have an indefinite 

 multitude of properties in common, it follows that, if 

 not with our present knowledge, yet with that which 

 we may hereafter acquire, the Kind is a subject to 

 which there will have to be applied many predicates. 

 The third component element of a philosophical lan- 

 guage, therefore, is that there shall be a name for 

 every Kind. In other words, there must not only be a 

 terminology but also a nomenclature. 



The words Nomenclature and Terminology are 

 employed by most authors almost indiscriminately; 

 Mr. Whewell being, as far as I am aware, the first 

 writer who has regularly assigned to the two words 

 different meanings. The distinction however which 

 he has drawn between them being a real and an 

 important one,, his example is likely to be followed; 

 and (as is apt to be the case when such innovations 

 in language are felicitously made) a vague sense of 

 the distinction is found to have influenced the employ- 

 ment of the terms in common practice, before the expe- 

 diency had been pointed out of discriminating them 

 philosophically. Every one would say that the reform 

 effected by Lavoisier and Guyton-Morveau in the 

 language of chemistry consisted in the introduction 

 of a new nomenclature, not of a new terminology. 

 Linear, lanceolate, oval, or oblong, serrated, dentate, 

 or crenate leaves, are expressions forming part of the 

 terminology of botany, while the names " Viola odo- 



