November ii, 1892.] 



SCIENCE. 



273 



direct need on the part of many, especially non-chemi8ts, to have 

 a brief summary of the reasons for the rules which have evoked 

 the most inquiry placed in a journal reaching all classes of those 

 interested in the progress of science. 



The moat important decisions may be classified under the fol- 

 lowing heads : — 



1. Elenmits.— CE.sixm. This shortened form for ccesium brings 

 us into harmony with the French cisium, and the Italian cesio, 

 and is in accord with the prevalent reform in the use of diph- 

 thongs. 



Aluminum. This shortened although less euphonic form meets 

 the wishes of technical chemists, and is desirable in view of the 

 growing industrial use of the metal. 



CoLUMBlUM. This replaces niobium as a matter of historical 

 justice. It seems important that the one element discovered and 

 named by an American chemist should retain the patriotic appel- 

 lation first assigned it. 



Glucinum is preferred to beryllium on the same ground of his- 

 torical priority. 



SULPOB. This is modified in accordance with the general pho- 

 netic change going on in our language, and the change is extended 

 to all the derivatives. It is a reform which brings us into accord 

 with the French sulfure, sulfite, etc., the German sulfat, sulfld, 

 etc., and the Italian zolfo or solfo, solforieo, etc. It might natu- 

 rally be asked, Why not extend this reform to phosphorus ? The 

 reasons are here by no means so strong as in the case of sulfur. 

 While the Italians use /os/oro, the French and Germans still retain 

 the ph, as phosphor e. Again, the change would ailect the initial 

 letter — a serious matter in indexing. 



2. Aesin, Stibin, Phosphin, HTDEoaEN-stJLFiD, etc. These 

 shorter terms, which have long since received the stamp of authori- 

 tative usage, displace completely henceforth their cumbersome 

 synonyms, arsenetted hydrogen, etc. It is hoped that the simpli- 

 fication may soon be carried still farther by the introduction of 

 sulfln, selenin, and tellurin. 



3. Gramme. At first sight the retention of the long French 

 form might seem inconsistent with the principles of phonetic 

 reform actuating the changes already enumerated. It is, how- 

 ever, dictated by strong prudential reasons, as long as the metric 

 system is used side by side with the old series of apothecaries' 

 weights in medicine. As soon as the transition period is over and 

 the latter system is effectually displaced, the simpler form will 

 unquestionably be adopted. Such is the similarity both in sound 

 and spelling between gram and grain, that it is evident how easily 

 mistakes of the gravest nature could occur either in following 

 written or verbal directions, especially in this era of telephones. 

 It is a matter of record that several deaths have already been 

 caused by the omission of the dot over the i in grain or by mere 

 inadvertence. 



4. Derivatives of Valence. In their formation the Latin pre- 

 fixes are used invariably instead of the Greek, this being thor- 

 oughly in accord with the recognized principles of word-building 

 in our language. 



5. The termination -OL. This is used exclusively for alcohols, 

 and all single names for alcohols receive the termination. This is 

 in harmony with British usage and conduces to a most desirable 

 uniformity and simplification. The chief difficulty in the appli- 

 cation will be found in the use of glycerol for glycerin; but as 

 this has been overcome in England, it certainly can be in this 

 country. 



6. The termination -ic. This is used for metals only, where 

 there is a contrast with -ous, as in ferric, mercuric, cuprie, etc., 

 avoiding such forms as strontic, aluminic, zincic, ammonic, etc. 

 The rule brings us, also, into accord with transatlantic usage 

 and eliminates several unnecessary and far from euphonious 

 terms. 



7. The termination -EST. The changes recommended in this con- 

 nection are perhaps the most far-reaching and the most subject to 

 discussion. They involve the dropping of the final e from the 

 names of all chemical elements and compounds formerly ending 

 in -ine, und the uniform pronunciation of the final syllable with 

 the short l, as chlorin, amin, anilin, quinin, cocain. The only 

 exception to this rule is in the case of the group of doubly unsat- 



urated hydrocarbons (butine, heptine, hexine, pentine, propine, 

 etc.), which still retain the final e and the long sound of I. 

 The chief objection to this rule is the fact that some years 

 since Watts and others proposed the use of the termination 

 -ine for basic substances and the limitation of the termination 

 -in to certain neutral compounds, viz., the glycerids, glucosids, 

 proteids, and bitter principles. In this latter category are 

 found also the so-called resinoids introduced by the eclectics, 

 and obtained by precipitating the alcoholic extract of a drug with 

 water. 



In considering the force of the objections that may be raised 

 against the change, it must be admitted at the outset that there 

 is an undeniable value in the consistent use of distinctive suffixes 

 for distinct classes of compounds; provided, however, that the 

 use of any given suffix is limited to a single class, that there is a 

 phonetic difference as well as a visible difference between closely 

 allied terminations, and that there is no serious violation of 

 established usage in word-building. Illustrations of such helpful 

 uniformity are to be found in the terminations of the various series 

 of hydrocarbons, of the alcohols, etc. In examining how far 

 these conditions prevail in the use of these terminations, we note 

 that — 



a. The use is not limited to a single class in the case of either 

 -in or -ine. b. There is little or no accompanying phonetic differ- 

 ence, the i being almost invariably short, c. The final e, as a 

 rule, when following a single consonant, should indicate the long 

 sound for the preceding consonant (Webster's Dictionary, "Prin- 

 ciples of Pronunciation," p. xlv.), which is not here the case. d. 

 The usage would demand a very extensive and accurate knowl- 

 edge of the constitution of a large number of compounds, e. It 

 has been adopted by but a portion of the chemical world; few are 

 consistent in its use; by many it has never been recognized. /. 

 In the case of the resinoids, the existing possibility of danger as a 

 result of confusion between, say, aconitin and aconitine, is but 

 slightly helped by the presence of the final e, as will be easily 

 acknowledged by anyone familiar with many specimens of hand- 

 writing, especially of physicians' handwriting, and as far as the 

 ear is concerned remains unaffected — a most important consid- 

 eration in view of the prevalent use of the telephone for ordering 

 prescriptions. 



It would seem eminently desirable for those most closely asso- 

 ciated with the progress of pharmacy to counsel at once the aboli- 

 tion of this existing nomenclature as applied to the resinoids by 

 introducing distinctive prefixes or additive terms, so as to remove 

 entirely all possibility of confusion. An able writer in a recent 

 article in the American Druggist (vol. xxi, p. 15) states: "But 

 though they (the resinoids) are gradually going out of use, some 

 of them are still in demand, and fatal results might ensue if both 

 terms, that of the weaker resinoid, and that of the powerful 

 alkaloid, were confounded." It may pertinently be inquired 

 whether a reform, the value and utility of which is conceded by 

 all, should be delayed by the effort to bolster up the weak fortifi- 

 cations about the terminology of a group of substances — not dis- 

 tinctive chemical compounds, but mechanical, commercial mix- 

 tures — when that terminology in its present state is confessedly 

 a menace to human life. 



The advantages accruing from the application of the new rule 

 are, briefly stated, the following: a. The simplification, uni- 

 formity, and economy of time resulting from the use of a single 

 spelling for the same sound, b. The unvarying use in the termi- 

 nation -in of the short i, the sound now employed in the vast 

 majority of cases, the one approximating most nearly to the 

 European i, and the one thereby most helpful to foreigners 

 using our language, and vice versa, c. The harmonizing of 

 the practice governing the use of this termination with the 

 principles underlying the general rules for the pronunciation 

 of other chemical terminations. d. The falling into line in 

 this regard with the general movement towards phonetic reform 

 in our language, e. The accord with the general rule in our 

 language governing the use of the final e and its effect on 

 preceding vowels. 



The termination -id. This replaces in all cases -idc (as oxid, 

 chlorid, sulfid). and the I is invariably short. The reasons for this 



