OCTOBEB 8, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



481 



Yet on the other hand there seems no really 

 good reason (other than common practise, 

 which is recogTiizedly potent) for discarding 

 the " i." I have somewhat hurriedly scanned 

 the works of Skeat, on etymology, in search 

 of some authority, hesides that of the ele- 

 ments' discoverers, for the prevailing spelling. 

 I have been unsuccessful. Some time ago I 

 was told by an eminent philologist that the 

 formation of modern Latin words does not al- 

 ways follow fixed rules. Also, an eminent 

 Boston chemist informed me that outside of 

 the dictionaries he knew of no authority for 

 the present spelling of the elements under dis- 

 cussion. It is evident that in the beginning 

 the authoritative spelling of the name of any 

 element is due to its discoverer in almost all 

 cases. For when we read of the discovery of 

 an element and learn that its discoverer gave 

 it a name in conformity with the names of 

 existing elements (provided it is an " ium " 

 element) we observe that there is a tendency 

 toward the species of uniformity which is the 

 subject of this note. 



If we take all the " ium " and " um " ele- 

 ments and consider them from the standpoint 

 of — what I may call — ^syllabic uniformity, we 

 see that there are twenty-six elements of three 

 syllables ; seventeen of four ; three of five, and 

 one of six. Platinum falls into the first class, 

 and molybdenum into the second, which two 

 classes compose the great majority. If we 

 add " i " to the endings of these elements, 

 then platinum still remains in the majority 

 class and molybdenum passes into the minor- 

 ity. Can it be possible that the naming of the 

 elements with a design for syllabic uniformity 

 had a place in the minds of the various dis- 

 coverers? It would seem fair to assume that 

 such was not the case. Therefore a possible 

 argument in favor of the present spelling of 

 the two above mentioned elements is elimi- 

 nated. 



On the other hand, the argument in favor 

 of what may be called terminal uniformity 

 has more to recommend it than syllabic uni- 

 formity. Aside from the very desirable prop- 

 erty of terminal uniformity itself, the sound 

 of the pronounced word ending in " ium " is 



more pleasing to the ear, and its appearance 

 is more pleasing to the eye, than is the word 

 with the " um " ending, which gives the sen- 

 sation of dullness, and is dumpy. While by 

 simply adding " i " the pronunciation of the 

 word " platinium " for instance, becomes at 

 once musical. Any one uttering the word first 

 with one ending and then with the other will 

 appreciate the last remark. 



In conclusion, one may say that although 

 the " um " elements have back of them the 

 power of common usage (as did aluminum 

 some years ago — now we almost invariably 

 write aluminium) yet there seems to exist an 

 unnecessary lack of harmony in the spelling 

 of some elements. However, this discord is 

 not at all extensive, for according to the high- 

 est authorities the only elements at present ir- 

 regular are platinum and molybdenum. It is 

 only a few years ago that it was very common 

 to write " aluminum," now it is rarely used by 

 scientific writers. This change has been 

 brought about by their adoption of the more 

 approved spelling. ^^Tay may not the contem- 

 porary scientific writers go a step farther, and 

 whenever they find it necessary to use the 

 names of these elements, write them glucinium, 

 lanthanium (lantanium), molybdenium, plat- 

 inium and tantalium ? Should the many in- 

 fluential scientific men find the suggestion 

 here ofltered pleasing to them and furthermore 

 worthy of adoption, then, in a short time, 

 there would be introduced into the spelling of 

 the names of elements a greater uniformity 

 than at present exists. G. B. O. 



Pbovidence, 

 July .5 



fiCrENTIFIC BOOKS 



Mendel's Principles of Heredity. By W. 

 Bateson. 390 pp., 6 colored plates, 3 por- 

 traits of Mendel and 35 figures in the text. 

 Cambridge (England) University Press ; 

 also New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons. 190!>. 

 This is not a new edition of the book pub- 

 lished under the same title in 1902 by the 

 same author and publisher, but for some time 

 now out of print. That little book served a 

 useful purpose in directing the attention of 



