TERMINOLOGY AND NOMENCLATURE. 289 



known in another way. Mr. Whewell seems to 

 incline to this opinion, which, however, appears to me 

 erroneous. Words belonging to a nomenclature differ, 

 I conceive, from other words mainly in this, that 

 besides the ordinary connotation, they have a peculiar 

 one of their own: besides connoting certain attributes, 

 they also connote that those attributes are distinctive 

 of a Kind. The term " peroxide of iron," for example, 

 belonging by its form to the systematic nomenclature 

 of chemistry, bears upon its face that it is the name 

 of a peculiar Kind of substance. It moreover con- 

 notes, like the name of any other class, some portion 

 of the properties common to the class; in this in- 

 stance the property of being a compound of iron and 

 the largest dose of oxygen with which iron will com- 

 bine. These two things, the fact of being such a com- 

 pound, and the fact of being a Kind, constitute the con- 

 notation of the name peroxide of iron. When we say 

 of the substance before us, that it is the peroxide of 

 iron, we thereby assert, first, that it is a compound of 

 iron and a maximum of oxygen, and next, that the sub- 

 stance so composed is a peculiar Kind of substance. 



Now, this second part of the connotation of any 

 word belonging to a nomenclature is as essential a 

 portion of its meaning as the first part, while the 

 definition can only declare the first: and hence the 

 appearance that the signification of such terms cannot 

 be conveyed by a definition: which appearance, how- 

 ever, is fallacious. The name Viola odorata denotes 

 a Kind, of which a certain number of characters, suffi- 

 cient to distinguish it, are enunciated in botanical 

 works. This enumeration of characters is surely, as 

 in other cases, a definition of the name. No, say 

 some, it is not a definition, for the name Viola odorata 

 does not mean those characters; it means that parti- 



VOL. II. U 



