PREFACE. Vll 



most scientific men and greatest philosophers of the present day, Sir John 

 Herschel, " it appears doubtful, whether it is desirable, for the essential 

 purposes of science, that extreme refinement in systematic nomenclature 

 should be insisted on. In all subjects where comprehensive heads of clas- 

 sification do not prominently offer themselves, all nomenclature must be a 

 balance of difficulties, and a good, short, unmeaning name, which has once 

 obtained a footing in usage, is preferable almost to any other." 



These remarks are the more readily offered, in consequence of a fear, 

 which I trust is groundless, arising out of, and caused by, the occasional 

 observations of some of our most able geologists. Thus, I find one author 

 objecting to the term tertiary, as applied to the supra- cretaceous deposits, 

 stating it to be exceedingly objectionable : I turn over the pages of another 

 great luminary, and I find that " the name of tertiary has been given with 

 much propriety ; that the name of super-cretaceous is peculiarly inappro- 

 priate, and that if a new name were necessary, post-cretaceous should have 

 been chosen." Every neophyte in geology now knows that the tertiary 

 deposits have been divided into eocene, miocene, and pliocene, the last being 

 subdivided into older and newer pliocene : this also is objected to, and it is 

 said, " if it be considered convenient to divide the supra-cretaceous rocks 

 of Europe into three or more sub-groups, names which imply their actual 

 geological position in the series, such as * superior,' ' medial/ and ' infe- 

 rior,' 'upper/ 'medial,' and 'lower,' or others of the like kind, would 

 seem preferable to those derived only from a per-centage of certain organic 

 contents." To multiply instances of this kind, would, however, be useless,, 

 and the sole motive for adducing the above, springs from a desire of 

 restraining, as far as may be, a too natural fondness for innovating on esta- 

 blished nomenclature. 



It is most desirable that geologists should endeavour to avoid a very 

 great evil which has gradually obtained in, and now sadly clogs, the pursuit 

 of mineralogy. The redundancy of terms there introduced is most pain- 

 fully bewildering, as the following instance will illustrate : " The nomen- 

 clature of most minerals is at present so incumbered with synonyma, that 

 it has become exceedingly perplexing to the student. The mineral which 

 is called epidote by Haiiy, is named pristazit by Werner, thallite by Leme- 

 therie, akanticone by Dandrada, delphinite by Saussure, glassy actinolite by 

 Kirwan, arendalit by Karsten, glassiger strahlstein by Emmerling ; la rayon- 

 nante vitreuse by Brochant, prismatoidischer augit-spath by Mohs, &c. &c."* 



To enter, here, on any defence of geology, against the groundless objec- 

 tions of weak, but amiable opponents, would be to travel out of the record. 



* Professor Cleaveland. 



