426 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION B. 
is well known; in days to come, when the history of our times is written, 
it will be referred to as a remarkable example of chemical shortsightedness. 
Names are needed for the elements which would serve to distinguish the 
ideal elementary substances from the forms in which they are known to us. 
No more appropriate name than oxygen could possibly be selected for the 
fundamental material; if the gen terminal could be applied to elemen- 
tary materials generally, it would be an-advantage ; it would not be easy, 
however, if this were done, to devise an appropriate separate name 
applicable to the active constituent of air.’ 
In 1885 I closed my address with a reference to the structure of the 
* In naming the inert gas in air, which he ultimately termed azotic gas, 
having proposed the name azote for the element, Lavoisier had in view as 
alternatives the terms alcaligen and nitrogen. As there was no proof that the 
element was a constituent of alkalies other than ammonia, he rejected the former 
name on the ground that it might convey too broad an impression; in course of 
time the latter is become the popular name, except in France, where motives of 
piety have prevailed; but the French practice has been justified by the universal 
use of the term azo in connexion with many nitrogen derivatives. 
Had Lavoisier realised that the alkalies and basic oxides generally owe their 
basicity to oxygen as much as acids and acidic oxides generally owe their acidity 
to oxygen—the one being oxygen tempered by metal, the other oxygen tempered 
by non-metal—as the number of basic oxides far outweighs the number of acidic 
oxides, he might well have chosen the name alcaligen rather than oxygen. The 
choice he made was a particularly happy one and striking evidence of his genius 
and sense of euphony—for oxygen is par excellence the acid-forming element 
and is most truly called sowr-stuff, the stuff of which sour tgings are made: 
whatever the properties of the initial oxide of a series, as the proportion of 
oxygen is increased, the acidic qualities are invariably strengthened. 
The choice of a terminal connoting the elementary radicles which would be 
applicable generally and also acceptable is very difficult. If usage do not forbid 
change, probably our ears will decline to allow us to be systematic. The terminal 
gen is not applicable to many present names. In the interest of euphony, excep- 
tion may be taken to the adoption of ion as a final syllable. In English ears most 
of the words with this ending have an ugly sound if pronounced so as to make 
it significant; moreover, our object is to secure a term which is applicable to the 
elementary material, whatever its state; the term ion is suggestive of a particular 
state—a state of chemical activity; and at present there is no agreement as to 
the nature of an ion. The terms atom, radicle (simple and compound), ion and 
molecule now all have their separate meaning and value and are indispensable. 
The only terminal which seems in any way likely to be generally satisfactory 
in use is the terminal yl, which is already applied to organic radicles ; its use might 
well be extended to radicles generally. 
I may add here that it is unfortunate that certain disturbers of the peace have 
advocated of late a reversion to the spelling radical, mainly on the ground that the 
term is of French origin and was thus spelt originally. But'there is no reason 
to give a French spelling to a word when it becomes English; and the genius of 
our language is against the proposal, apart from the fact that it introduces 
unnecessary confusion. We make clear distinction between principal and prin- 
ciple; it is most desirable, in like manner, to distinguish between radical and 
radicle ; the latter is in harmony with particle and participle and being suggestive 
of a rootlet, it is eminently significant. Radical is almost misleading, as a radical 
in these days is apparently one whose tendency is to go to extremes while 
contemplating the surface only instead of going to the root of things. 
It would be to the advantage of students also if we were far more systematic 
in our use of formule as well as in matters of nomenclature. At present 
no proper distinction is made between empirical and molecular formule in the 
case of the elements. Notwithstanding that we acknowledge our indebtedness to 
Avogadro and to Canizzaro his prophet, it is still not unusual to find gaseous 
hydrogen represented by the symbol H and gaseous oxygen by the symbol O; the 
text-books generally pay little heed to such matters. We are far too careless of 
consequences in our teaching and do not sufficiently appreciate the value of 
system and ritual. If it were made the practice to represent molecular formule 
in some special manner—by Clarendon or thick type, for example—attention 
~~ 
