1014 Transactions of the American Institute. 



*a totally different direction — to a mathematical, not mnemonic, 

 expression of facts. 3d. The chemistry of the old authors would 

 be iBore than ever unavailable. 4th. The present footed stage of 

 chemistry will not allow a total revolution. 5th. A universal adop- 

 tion, all but unattainable, is absolutely necessary for its success. 

 Gth. Chemists would not only have to learn something fresh, but 

 1 to unlearn all they know, in so far as the words express facts, not 

 the facts themselves. 7th. It is, as the author states, a shprt-hand, 

 and we should immediately have A's, B's and C's, systems also." 



Without attempting the very easy task of answering such objec- 

 tions, nearly all of which might be brought against every improve- 

 ment of a like character, however important, I will only add 

 another extract from the same article in the Chemical JSTews, as to 

 the real merit of my work: 



"It is, indeed, proper to say, that the author has proved 'the 

 copiousness and capacity ' of the new scheme, and we owe it to 

 him, in the barest justice, to say, that the scheme, as a mnemonic 

 scheme, seems perfect; and that it is not more complex than such 

 a scheme of necessity must be. The work has had bestowed upon 

 it the greatest labor, thought and knowledge; and whether it be 

 adopted or not, the thanks of the chemical world are due to Mr. 

 Tillman, whatever its verdict may be, for giving them the opportunity 

 of forming a correct judgment on the feasibility of any such scheme." 



An error in the text, as to the date of the author's invention 

 (which should have been 1845 instead of 1850, and which was cor- 

 rectly given in the official copy of the Proceedings of the American 

 Association for the Advancement of Science), brought out a com^ 

 munication in the Chemical News of April 10, 1867, questioning its 

 originality. This movement was most opportune, for it prompted 

 me to collect testimony which I might not havel)een able to obtain 

 at a later period. In looking for evidence of the priority of my 

 invention, I called on Prof. C. A. Joy, of Columbia College, and 

 -was delighted to find he had kept a diary, on referring to which, 

 he was enabled to fix the day I explained my new system to liim. 

 I had time to obtain the statement of only one other well-known 

 gentleman, before sending to the London Chemical JSfews the fol- 

 lowing communication, which appeared on the 7th of June, 1867: 



" To the Editor of the Chemical News : 



•' Sir — Permit me to rectify a statement made by a correspond- 

 ent, on page 200, No. 285 of the Chemical JVeivs. Gmelin did not 

 publish any new plan for a chemical nomenclature in the year 1827. 



