J.D. Dana on System in Mineralogical Nomenclature. 15} 
far n special cases might be 
ther extended; but it is unnecessary as I shall soon present 
ber of names requiring it are comparatively few; and hardly any 
future of the science. Mineralogy is yet in its formative 
fa ; lt is far from being so stiffened with age as not to admit 
Progress in the direction contemplated. 
It has become very desirable that the nomenclature of rocks 
should have some point of difference from that of’ minerals. 
ames, like Diorite, Dolerite, Eurite, Porphyrite, Andesite, Ton- 
ite, Phthanite, Nephelinix Miascite, Itabirite, Aphanite, are fast 
and have nothing in them to indicate whether they 
i t is, 
looked for or not in a work on mineralog 
5 
se 
| 
fe 
gs 
names Granite and Syenite. In the German language the termi- 
nal syllable lite, when from the Greek diOos, 18 written Lith, as in 
dl 
fey 
Pa 
= 
ro 
= 
ra) 
S 
tel 
a 
5 
* 
(og 
® 
: es 
Ke 
—_ 
B 
F 
E 
the té (or yt in German) be accepted as simply a termination in 
Tn an “athe ey discuss the bearing ddimita 
‘ N10} er paper TO to uss the and ilmlta- 
“ens of the law of ee mineralogical nomenclature. gn E 
