Review of Cleaveland^s Mineralogy, 45 



cheeks, while his respiration proceeds without embarrassment 

 through the nostrils, he will need no other instrument than 

 the common blowpipe. Indeed it is a truly admirable instru- 

 ment, instantly giving us the effect of very powerful furnaces, 

 the heat being entirely under command, the subject of opera- 

 tion and all the changes in full view, and the expense and 

 bulk of the instrument being such that every one may possess 

 it, and carry it about his person. 



The chapter on the principles of arrangement is worthy of 

 all praise. This difficult subject is here discussed with such 

 clearness, comprehensiveness, and candour, as prove the au- 

 thor to be completely master of his subject ; and we are per- 

 suaded, that, on this topic, no author can be studied with 

 more advantage. We forbear to extract, because the whole 

 should be attentively perused in connexion, and scarcely ad- 

 mits of abridgement. We entirely agree with Professor 

 Cleaveland, as we have already said, that the chemical compo- 

 sition of minerals is the only just foundation of their arrange- 

 ment ; that next in importance is the crystalline structure, in- 

 cluding a knowledge of the primitive form, and integrant mole- 

 tJule ; and last and least important, in fixing the arrangement, 

 are the external characters : these last should be only provi- 

 sionally employed, where the two first are not ascertained, or 

 the second is not applicable. When the arrangement is once 

 made, we inay, however, and we commonly shall, in describing 

 Kidnerals, pursue precisely the reverse order ; the external 

 characters will usually be mentioned first, the crystalline cha- 

 racters next, and the chemical last of all. In description, the 

 external characters are often the most valuable; if judiciously 

 selected and arranged, they will always prove of the most es- 

 s&atial service, and can rarely be entirely dispensed with. 



With regard to the nomenclature of minerals, we feelingly 

 unite with Professor Cleaveland in deploring the oppressive 

 redundancy of synonymes. Few minerals have only one 

 same, and usually they have several. With Count Bournon 

 we agree, that the discoverer of a mineral has the exclusive 

 right of naming it, and that the name once given should not be 

 changed without the most eogent reasoRS. What then shall 



