1813.] upon Werner's Mineralogical Method, 



crystallization, and the system which he has built upon it, fniist 

 always be contemplated with pleasure as one of the most beati- 

 tiful and useful branches of mineralogical knowledge. The 

 address v^ith which he has employed this character in forming 

 species has often excited my admiration. He has sometimes 

 corrected glaring faults in the Wernerian arrangement, and 

 some of his new groupes of species (as those into which he has 

 divided the zeolites) 1 think infinitely preferable to the old Wer- 

 nerian arrangement. 



But while we give the preference to Kaiiy, let us not deprive 

 Werner of the merit which he really possesses as a describer of 

 crystals. His sole object was to describe the different shapes of 

 crystals, however irregular, with distinctness, atid in as few 

 words as possible. Now 1 appeal to Mr. Chenevix himself 

 whether this object has not been accomplished. The Wernerian 

 mode of description possesses one advantage over that of Haiiy : 

 it may be learned in a few hours by one not even acquainted 

 with mathematics ; whereas every mineralogist, according to 

 the method of Haiiy, must in the first place be a mathematician. 

 Mr. Chenevix blamfcs the Wernerian terms, because they are 

 not rigidly mathematical. I will not pretend to vindicate them 

 in that point of view. Werner was contriving, not a mathema- 

 tical, but a mineralogical nomenclature ; and, of course, did 

 not consider himself as bound dov/n by mathematical principles. 

 But the Wernerian terms are precise, which was all that was 

 requisite. To give the reader an idea of the indecent strain of 

 writing in which Mr. Chenevix indulges himself, throughout the 

 greatest part of his paper, I shall quote a passage from his 

 animadversions on the crystals of Werner, and I shall quote it in 

 the language in which it was originally written, that 1 may not, 

 be accused of treating him unjustly. 



L'estimation des angles est donnee avec une precision dighe 

 ^e celle qui characterise revaluation de la pesenteur specifique. 

 Un angle est tres obtus quand il est plus grand que 120°; 

 obtus, s'il a plus de 100° a 120°; un peu obtus depuis 90° 

 jusqu'a 100°; droit s'il.excede .90°; tres aigu entre 45° et 90°; 

 aigu, quand il a 45° ; tres aigu, quand il a moins de 45° (Bro- 

 chant, vol. i. p. 97) « Ainsi nous apprenoos que Tangle droit 

 est celui qui a plus de 90°. J'ai entendu dire a M. Werner, et 

 j'ai ecrit a ses lecons, sous sa dictee, qu'une difference de 10°, 

 ne Tempechoit pas de considerer un angle comme droit; ainsi 

 nous ne serons pas etonnes tantot de voir que la zeolithe cubique 

 porte ce nom, puisque le grand angle de ses faces ne difFere de 

 Tangle droit que de 3° 30^" 



In this passage Mr. Chenevix accuses W^erner of not knowing 

 that a right angle is an angle of 90° ; an accusation which he 

 could not seriously believe, W^ho, that has received the least 



