Beaumontite and Lincolnite identical with Heulandite. 233 



Art. II.— Beaumontite and Lincolnite identical with Heuland- 

 ite; by Francis Alger, Member of the American Academy, 

 of the Boston Society of Natural History, &c. 



Read before the Boston Society of Natural History, Oct. 5, 1843, and published 



in their Journal. 



There is a too v prevalent disposition among mineralogists, as 

 well as among the cultivators of other departments of natural sci- 

 ence, to add something new to the catalogue of species. They 

 make specific differences in many cases where by a fuller investi- 

 gation, or a nicer comparison of the object with that which most 

 nearly resembles it, an identity might be at once established be- 

 tween them, and the science not be burthened with so many new 

 names. The truth of what I now say, has been shown by the 

 recent examination of several minerals, accredited as new, which 

 have been found by some of the German and Swedish chemists, 

 to be varieties of other species, or in some cases, mere mechanical 

 mixtures. A very frequent source of these mistakes, so far as 

 mineralogy is concerned, is owing to a scrupulous regard not be- 

 ing paid to the chemical composition of the substance ; this being 

 the essential basis of mineralogy as a true science. Another cause 

 may be traced to the different appearances, which the same min- 

 eral, from different localities, assumes in some of its external 

 characters ; appearing, perhaps, under some new modification of 

 its primary form. 



A remarkable instance of the latter, has recently been presented 

 in the case of the mineral examined by M. Levy, and named 

 Beaumontite.* This substance has long been familiar to our 

 American mineralogists, as the associate of the Haydenite found 

 near Baltimore. It has now become exceedingly valuable, 

 principally through the investigations of M. Levy, who sup- 

 posed it to be a new substance. It is a very beautiful mineral, 

 and being extremely scarce, it will continue to be highly prized 

 by mineralogists, both here and abroad, even if it should prove to 

 be no new species, but only a rare modification of a well known 

 one. I believe it has not been described in any of our late trea- 



* M. Levy read his paper before the French Academy of Sciences, (L'Institut, 

 1839, No. 313, p. 455.) An abstract of his communication may be seen in the 

 London and Edinburgh Phil. Mag. for Feb. 1840. 



Vol. xlvi, No. 2.— Jan.-March, 1844. 30 





