V. 



of names is prejudicial to the interests of science ; perplexing, and often 

 disgusting, to the student ; and, in fact, raises an unnecessary obstruction 

 in the path of knowledge; it becomes a subject of grave consideration 

 whether the imposition of a new name, in lieu of one already become con- 

 ventional, though that which has become conventional may, probably, not 

 be the best or most appropriate that could have been chosen, be not a 

 hazardous and injudicious course. It has been remarked by one of the 

 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 

 classification 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 

 established 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 pur- 

 suit of mineralogy. The redundancy of terms there introduced is most 

 painfully bewildering, as the following instance will illustrate : " The 

 nomemclature of most minerals is at present so encumbered with synonyma, 



