Dec. 15, 1881] 
\ 
NATURE 
149 
are, however, certain irregularities of nomenclature which 
it may be worth while to notice, partly with the view to 
correction in future editions, partly because the greater 
number of them are not peculiar to this work, but are of 
very frequent occurrence in our chemical literature, 
On p. 91 we read: “ Carbon monoxide is the common 
radical of the carbonic acid derivatives, and as such is 
termed ‘carboxyl’”; on the next page the compound 
CONH is called “carboxylimide”; and on p. 98 we 
read, “corresponding to carbo.yl is the radical CS, thio- 
carbovyl.” Here (and in the original) there is surely an 
inconsistency ; if CS is thiocarbonyl, CO should certainly 
be called carbonyl; and such in fact is the name hitherto 
given to it by all writers, whereas carboxyl always denotes 
the group COOH. By a similar inconsistency the term 
Ethyl-carbonic acid is used on p. 353 as a synonym of 
propionic acid. Now most readers would probably 
understand by this term the compound CO(OC,H,)(OH), 
ze. carbonic acid having one of its hydrogen-atoms re- 
placed by ethyl—an acid of which several salts are 
known—whereas propionic acid is C,H;.COQOH, and its 
proper synonym is ethyl-carboxylic acid. The mistake 
here made arises from a too close imitation in sound 
of the German term “ Carbonsiure,” which, with the 
prefixes mono-, di-, tri-, was introduced by Kolbe to 
denote the number of carboxyl-groups, COOH, contained 
in an organic acid. In many instances however this term 
is correctly rendered ; thus on pp. 557 and 561 we find 
the acids C;H,(COOH), spoken of as denzene-dicarboxylic 
acids, though further on (p. 653) the same acids are 
called phenylene-dicarbonic acids. It seems indeed as 
if the two terminations were used indiscriminately. 
Another irregularity of frequent occurrence in English 
nomenclature is the indiscriminate use of the termina- 
tions zz and zze. Dr. Hofmann suggested some years ago 
that ze should be used exclusively for organic bases, and 
zz for neutral bodies, such as glucosides, bitter principles, 
proteids, &c. This rule has been followed by some 
authors, and the writer of this review has taken some 
pains to recommend its general adoption; but the two 
terminations are still, by many writers, used without discri- 
mination. As examples of this in the volume under con- 
sideration may be cited, on the one hand, gelatine, choleste- 
rine, and on the other, chondrin, albumin, fibrin, dyslysin, 
&c. Now the use of special terminations for each group 
of compounds is very much to be desired; it is by no 
means an innovation, but, on the contrary, is as old as our 
systematic nomenclature itself; witness the well-known 
rule that the names of acids shall end in zc and ows, and 
those of the corresponding salts in afe and 7¢e. To 
extend this regularity of termination to the names of all 
classes of compounds, especially in organic chemistry, is 
a main object of the rules lately issued by the Council of 
the Chemical Society to the Abstractors for that Society’s 
journal, and its general adoption would certainly lead to 
a great improvement in our nomenclature in point of 
regularity. 
The habit already noticed of too closely imitating 
foreign forms sometimes leads to awkwardness of ex- 
pression in translating, as on p. 103, where it is said 
that “the paraffins burn easily when heated in an oxygen- 
containing atmosphere” (27 einer sauerstoffhaltenden At- 
mosphire) ; now it would have been quite as easy, and 
more in accordance with English usage, to say “in an 
atmosphere containing oxygen.” Similar remarks may 
be made respecting the expression ‘‘carbon-free radical,” 
which occurs on p. 565. It is worth some trouble to 
keep our language pure, and there is no more fruitful 
source of corruption in a language than the careless 
imitation of foreign words and idioms. And _ here 
I cannot avoid entering a protest against the use, in 
English speaking and writing, of the French words sézre, 
décimetre, &c., instead of their English equivalents, 
meter, decimeter, &c, Meter is a true English word, 
and is used both singly and in combination, as in the 
words barometer, thermometer, gasometer, &c., and 
there is therefore not the slightest occasion for inter 
larding our sentences with the French forms in question, 
The translation affords also some instances of a very 
common error, viz. a confusion between the terms szd- 
stitution and replacement. These words are indeed 
commonly regarded as synonymous, whereas they are 
really correlative, and the relation between them is 
this: When A comes in and B goes out, A ts substituted 
Jor B, and B is replaced, or displaced, by A, The com- 
mon error is to say “substituted,” where the proper term 
would be ‘‘replaced.” Examples both of the correct and 
incorrect use of these words may be found on pp. i100 
and rot, e.g. “ The hydrogen-atoms of the paraffins can 
be replaced .... by the halogen-atoms,” &c.: this is 
correct ; but a little lower down we find, “‘ By swdstitution 
of only a single hydrogen-atom ... .”; it should be by 
replacement, The same mistake occurs on the last line 
of p. 100; on the other hand the word “replaced” is cor- 
rectly used in several places on p. 102. It would seem, 
therefore, that the translators regard the two words in 
question as synonymous. 
Next with regard to notation: Many of the graphic 
formule: throughout the volume are unnecessarily drawn 
out into long vertical columns, where they might with 
equal clearness have been printed horizontally ; in one 
instance indeed seven formule fill up a whole page. In 
this, however, the English editors have simply followed 
the practice of the original work ; but this was printed in 
1874, and since that time it has been found that chemical 
formulas may for the most part be printed much more 
concisely without any sacrifice of clearness, The formula 
of arsenic trichlorodimethide, for example, which is printed 
‘CH; 
LAGE tae 
in the form As—Cl , might perhaps have been con- 
Nal 
\Cl 
densed into (CH,),AsCl,, without 
violence to the views of the author. 
A more important matter, however, relating to notation 
is the habitual omission—sanctioned indeed by prevailing 
usage—of brackets in formule, where they ought to be 
inserted. It is of course unnecessary to insist upon the 
difference between 2a@-++ 6 and 2(a@-+ 4), with which every 
schoolboy becomes familiar at a very early stage of his 
mathematical studies ; but unfortunately it has lately be- 
come the fashion to ignore this difference in chemical 
formula, and to represent, for example, two molecules 
of alcohol by 2C,H;.OH instead of the proper form, 
2(C,H,. OH). Now the neglect of this difference is of 
doing any great 
