$90 Professor Mohs’s General Reflections on 
names which have a signification, and which are of two different 
kinds. Some of them refer to the connection of the different 
natural productions, in regard to their resemblance, some to 
their chemical composition. The employment of the lat- 
ter, which belong to a science entirely different from Na- 
tural History, clearly demonstrates, that the science in which 
they are employed is yet far from being an independent one ; 
and this is perfectly confirmed on farther examination. The 
connection expressed by the former, is either entirely incor- 
rect, or at least does not refer to the system, in which the 
names and denominations are applied. They produce errone- 
ous conceptions, and hence are still more objectionable than 
those that have no signification at all, particularly for begin- 
ners, who are not yet accustomed to the examination of mi- 
nerals themselves. To be convinced of the truth of these obser- 
vations, we have only to reflect upon the names of blende and 
hornblende, of cross-stone, and iron-stone, of heavy-spar, schil- 
lerspar, adamantine- spar ; of white, green, yellow, red, blue, 
black lead^ore, fahl-ore, cube-ore, red manganese-ore, grey anti- 
mony-ore, and many others. 
In every science, but particularly in Natural History, it is ne- 
cessary to give a signification to words, and, therefore, really to 
express something by them ; the question therefore is now, What 
are the things that should be expressed by the nomenclature in 
Natural History in general, and more particularly in Minera- 
logy P There are two objects to be attained in respect to this. 
The first is to denominate the species, or to determine the ob- 
ject of which something is to be said ; the second is to indicate 
the connection which exists between them, in regard to their na- 
tural-historical similarity in the natural system, for this is the 
ultimate end of all the endeavours of naturalists. Any nomen- 
clature confined to the former of these purposes is a trivial no- 
menclature ; it does not presuppose a system, nor any scientific 
disposition of the species ; whereas that in which both are 
united, and which, therefore, refers to a system, will represent 
that system, and be called on that account, being the only 
scientific one, the systematic nomenclature. 
In those sciences which give scope to hypothesis we ge- 
nerally prefer such expressions (names and denominations), as 
