SCIENTIFIC NOMENCLATUEE. 



231 



Latin termination ; declaring to them that it is impossible for 

 me to perceive the difiference which exists between these two 

 processes, both equally barbarous and equally ridiculous. 



I can perfectly comprehend that works of science are 

 better written in a common and generally-taught language, 

 like Latin or Greek, in order that they may not be confined 

 to one country, but when they write them in the vulgar 

 tongue, I cannot see why they should take the trouble to 

 borrow from foreign languages words which exist in that 

 which they employ. 



Thus, why call the lupin with narrow leaves lupin micro- 

 phylle, since microphylle, a Greek barbarism and a French 

 barbarism, says nothing but — with narrow leaves? Why 

 call a sort of Acacia inerme, instead of calling it thornless, 

 which has the same sense, and has only the fault of being more 

 clear ? Why do you say that the paquerette (Easter daisy) 

 is httmifuse, instead of saying it is spread upon the earth? 

 Why do you say that the elm has its leaves scdbres instead of 

 saying that its leaves are rough, &c. ? 



Why this useless and ridiculous mixture of these three 

 unfortunate languages? Adopt one of them, speak it, write 

 it, and only borrow from the others the words in which the 

 one you have adopted is deficient. 



Do not make for science the horrible thorns with which you 

 surround the most beautiful and most graceful things. 



