462 Reviews — Bands Mineralogy, 



fusion of mind which we have found to be the frequent result of a 

 few hours work at comparing old with new formulae. 



In the description of species, the characteristics are mentioned 

 in the following order : — 1, Crystalline form and structure ; 2, 

 hardness, specific gravity, lustre, colour, diaphenity ; 3, varieties 

 and chemical composition ; 4, Pyrognostic and chemical characters ; 

 5, Geological position, localities, mineral associates ; 6, altered 

 forms ; 7, artificial and furnace products. 



The introduction, although too brief, contains a useful and ex- 

 planatory section in chemistry, one on crystallography, another on 

 nomenclature, embodying some very interesting remarks on the 

 naming of mineral species, and the want of conformity in the system 

 of nomenclature. In order to render the work more uniform. Pro- 

 fessor Dana has proposed that the names of species should have, as 

 far as possible, the termination of ite, and has accordingly changed 

 a number of the names in the course of this volume. 



This plan, however good in itself, is open to the same objection 

 that applies to the alteration of the established nomenclature in any 

 other branch of science, namely, that of creating confusion instead of 

 order : for when a name becomes well known and generally 

 adopted, nothing but mischief can result from changing it. The 

 termination here proposed, moreover, has no definite meaning like 

 that conveyed by the chemical terminations *' ite " and " ide." 

 ''Io($ite" is changed into "lodyrite," (p. 117) ; '' Haiiyne " into 

 "Haiiynite," (p. 332); "Nosean" into " Nosite," (p. 333); 

 '' Leucophane " into " Leucophanite," (p. 260) ; Common Salt is 

 changed into ''Halite," (p. 112) ; and " Blende" into "Sphalerite," 

 (p. 48). No mineralogist, during the last twenty-five years, has 

 ever thought of applying the name " Blende " to anythirig but sul- 

 phide of zinc, and we cannot, therefore, think this a good alteration. 

 The name " Pitch-blende," very properly abolished, is replaced by 

 '/Uraninite " (p. 154), but the name selected as a substitute is unfor- 

 tunate, for it is sure to be confounded with '' Uranite," a well- 

 known name for *' Torbernite," a very difi"erent mineral. " Pyr- 

 oxene " is retained instead of " Augite," (p. 212) ; the latter name 

 being considered as only entitled to be used for one of its varieties. 



"Sal-ammoniac," (p. 114) a bad name, is retained; whereas, 

 according to Dr. Dana's rule, it ought to have been changed into 

 some more definite mineralogical term ; " Salmiac " has long been 

 its mineralogical name. We must also protest against the name 

 '' Niccolite," (page 60). The derivation of names from "dog-Latin" 

 is excusable from no point of view that we can find. 



We could multiply these cases considerably, but what we are 

 anxious to point out is, that such changes as we have referred to, 

 always objectionable, become more so when apparently applied 

 capriciously, and especially in cases where no rule can be generally 

 adopted. 



A far more objectionable change to English chemists and mineral- 

 ogists, is that of oxide, sulphide, fluoride, etc., into oxid, sulphid, 

 and fluorid. Keady as we are to express our thanks to Dr. Dana for 



