510 EDITORIAL 
reference. Furthermore, the addition of the prefix would make 
the already cumbrous nomenclature still more ungainly. Reform 
should move in the direction of simplicity and fixity as well as 
significance. 
In naming minerals there is no occasion for the introduction 
of the bungling binomial system. There would be an obvious 
advantage in deriving the names of minerals from those of their 
chemical constituents, as suggested, but if this is done a uni- 
form terminal syllable is a pedantic superfluity. Szdfozinc would 
sufficiently show that the subject was not a plant or an animal, 
without the terminal 7. So also the Sphalerita becomes nearly 
needless and quite incongruous, as it belongs to the meaningless 
system which it is proposed to eliminate. In place of it a sylla- 
ble to express the form of crystallization would carry out the 
fundamental idea. 
The most hopeful suggestion yet made for mineralogical 
nomenclature proposes that the names shall consist simply of a 
combination of syllables which shall indicate the’ crystalline 
form and the essential chemical constituents, since these are the 
characterizing elements. The main difficulty of such a system 
lies in securing brevity and euphony. It would be easy enough 
to improve upon the present uncouthness in the main, but not to 
reach good phonic combinations in all cases. Much could be 
done, however, by leaving out all useless lumber and all super- 
fluous tailpieces, by reducing the abbreviations to their lowest 
terms, and by giving them the best possible combining forms. 
If this required that some liberties be taken in forming the 
abbreviations it would be merely introducing into language that 
regard for economy and utility which characterizes progress in 
all the live arts. pieaKG ile 
