46 Review of Phillips’s Mineralogy. 
Heavy spar is not mentioned as a synonym of Baryte, (another 
new name,) and of course Heavy spar is not in the Index; 
Bromiite is not given as a synonym of Alstonite; yenite of Ilva 
ite; manganese spar of Rhodonite, ete. fn 
are also omissions of species and facts that are some- 
what difficult of explanation. It will be of most interest to 
American mineralogists to learn of those that pertain to Ameri- 
can minerals. 
The species Gibbsite, found at Richmond, Mass., was first cor- 
rectly analyzed and described, years ago, by Dr. Torrey. Her 
mann recently analyzed certain specimens from Richmond and 
reported their containing a large amount of phosphoric acid. 
This led to some careful analyses by Silliman, Jr., who prov: 
that Dr. Torrey was right, no phosphoric acid, or but a trace, be- 
ing detected. These results are published in Dana’s Mineralogy, 
and in this Journal, volume vii, p. 411, (1849). Brooke and 
Miller mention only the analyses of Hermann, not even intimating 
that any different view is held by others, although Hermann’s 
own results vary in the phosphoric acid from 37-6 to 11-9 pet 
Moreover, to add to the confusion, the Gibbsite locality, 
Richmond, is referred to as a locality of Hydrargillite as well as 
of Gibbsite, although it is well known that but one of these spe- 
cies occurs there. 
Emerylite of Dr. J. Lawrence Smith has been found within 
the past three or four years to be a very common mineral, occur 
ring with corundum in Asia Minor and Siberia, as well as in the 
United States, in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. There have 
been sz analyses of American specimens by three different 
chemists ;* also eight by Dr. Smith of the Asia Minor mineral, 
and one, by the same chemist, of a Siberian specimen. ; 
Smith’s analyses are published in this Journal, Jan., 1851. All 
agree very closely. ‘lhe authors of this new edition of Phillips 
throw the species into their Appendix, give a single analyses, 
mention only the Pennsylvania and Asia Minor localities, But 
this is not all. 
old erroneous analysis of Margarite, and does not recognize this 
new fact respecting Emerylite. sce | 
* See Dana’s Mineralogy, 3d edition, 1850, p, 362. + Vol. lili, p.1. 
