N M 



names of things in any art or science, 

 or the whole vocabulary of tech- 

 nical terms which are appropriated 

 to any particular branch of art or 

 science. 



The imposition of a name on any 

 subject of contemplation is an epoch 

 in its history of great importance. 

 It not only enables us readily to 

 refer to it in conversation or wri- 

 ting, without circumlocution, but, 

 what is of more consequence, it 

 gives it a recognized existence in 

 our own minds, as a matter for 

 separate and peculiar consideration. 

 How important a good system of 

 nomenclature is, may at once be 

 seen, by considering the immense 

 number of species presented by 

 almost every branch of science of 

 any extent, which absolutely re- 

 quire to be distinguished by names. 

 Thus, the botanist is conversant 

 with from 80,000 to 100,000 

 species of plants ; the entomologist 

 with, perhaps, as many, of insects. 

 And the same as regards chemistry, 

 astronomy, &c. 



Nomenclature, then, is, in itself, 

 an important part of science, as it 

 prevents our being lost in a wilder- 

 ness of particulars, and involved in 

 inextricable confusion. Happily, 

 in those great branches of science, 

 where the objects of classification 

 are more numerous, and the neces- 

 sity for a clear and convenient 

 nomenclature most pressing, no 

 very great difficulty in its estab- 

 lishment is felt. The facility with 

 which the chemist, the botanist, or 

 the entomologist, refers by name 

 to any individual object in his 

 scinece, shows what may be effected 

 in this way when characters are 

 themselves distinct. 



Nomenclature, in a systematic 

 point of view, is as much, perhaps 

 more, a consequence than a cause 

 of extended knowledge. Any one 

 may give an arbitrary name to a 

 thing, merely to be able to talk of 



[ 317 ] N M 



it ; but to give a name which shall 

 at once refer it to a place in a 

 system, we must know its proper- 

 ties ; and we must have a system, 

 large enough, and regular enough, 

 to receive it in a place which 

 belongs to it and to no other. 



There is no science in which the 

 evils resulting from a rage for 

 nomenclature have been felt to such 

 an extent as in mineralogy. The 

 nomenclature of most minerals is 

 at present so encumbered with 

 synonyma, that it has become ex- 

 tremely perplexing to the student. 

 This may be illustrated by the 

 example of Epidote. This mineral, 

 which is called epidote by Haiiy, is 

 named pistazit by "Werner, thallite 

 by Lemetherie, alcanticone by Dan- 

 drada, delphinite by Saussure, glassy 

 actinolite by Kirwan, arendalit by 

 Karsten, glassiger strahlstein by 

 Emmerling, la rayonnante vitreuse 

 by Brochant, prismatoidischer augit- 

 spath by Mohs, &c., &c. 



In all subjects where compre- 

 hensive 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 pre- 

 ferable to almost any other ; Fab- 

 ricius maintained " optima nomina, 

 quce omnino nil significant." 

 When the composition is unknown, 

 those names, which are altogether 

 unmeaning in regard to any pro- 

 perty of the thing, are, perhaps, 

 the least objectionable ; at all 

 events, they cannot lead to error. 



Linnaeus was the first to intro- 

 duce systematic names into natural 

 history. By the introduction of 

 these scientific, fixed, and univers- 

 ally valid names, Linnaeus has 

 undoubtedly acquired his greatest 

 merit in science, and if every thing 

 else which he has done should be 

 forgotten, this, which ie wholly his 

 work,, will secure his name from 



