234 . Correspondence—T, Crook. : 
is not a sound reason why geologists should relinquish their use of it 
in a scientific sense, especially when, as I pointed out in my previous 
letter, such a use can be shown to be quite consistent with the 
original meaning of the term. 
My. Scrivenor now admits the inaccuracy involved in the un- 
restricted use of the term laterite for ferruginous surface products. 
He seems not to be aware, however, that his “proposal to extend the 
use of the term bauxite is equally objectionable. His only remedy 
for the abuse of the word laterite is a still further abuse of the word 
bauxite, a course of procedure in which I confess inability to see any 
wisdom at all, practical or otherwise. Unfortunately, the term 
bauxite has been so carelessly used by most writers, that there is 
some degree of plausibility in his suggestion. 
Now I fully admit that bauxite is a mineralogical uncertainty ; and 
that there may not be a definite mineral corresponding in composition 
to the formula Al, 0,2 H,0O, which has always been attributed to 
bauxite by mineralogists; but until this possible fact has been 
definitely established and accepted by mineralogists, it seems to me 
that bauxite must remain a mineralogical name which cannot be 
applied indiscriminately by scientific workers to lateritic weathering 
products. 
Is Mr. Scrivenor aware of the fact that the use of the term bauxite 
in a petrographical sense, for a mixture of hydrated oxides and other 
substances, would invalidate its use as a simple mineral name? If 
so, dare he assert, in view of the proved existence of xanthosiderite 
(Fe, 0, 2 H, 0), that its aluminium analogue, the bauxite of mineralogy, 
does not exist? If not, what name does he propose to give to the 
possible Al, O, 2 Hy O of mineralogy ? 
If it be il ererabely proved that the mineral bauxite (Al, O, 2 H, O) 
does not exist, and that the material which has hitherto been regarded 
as such is really and always a mixture of gibbsite (Al, O33 H, O) and 
diaspore (Al, O, H, 0), it will then be necessary for GO ly os 9 to 
abandon mete as a simple mineral name; and in that event it will 
possibly be available for petrographical use. If on the other hand, 
as is more likely to be the case, mineralogists decide that there is 
a definite mineral corresponding in composition to the formula 
Al, O, 2 H, O, then the name bauxite will unquestionably belong to 
this sflaseeriue, and this alone, in scientific nomenclature; that is, if 
Mr. Scrivenor and others fail, as I hope they will, in their efforts. to 
degrade the word bauxite completely. This issue would more than 
ever leave a large and important function for the word laterite as 
a petrographical term. It is this scientific necessity of making 
provision for Al, O, 2H, 0, the bauxite of mineralogy, which makes 
Mr. Scrivenor’s ‘suggestion positir ely harmful, and puts an insuperable 
difficulty in the way of its adoption by geologists. 
Anent the rather misleading statement by Mr. Scrivenor, that 
‘‘in other countries the original definition [of laterite] has been 
abandoned ”’, I can only repeat the fact that the authorities of the 
present generation who have gone seriously into the study of laterite 
are at one as regards the scientific meaning to be attached to the 
term. The French and German schools from their study of African 
