I _74 Significant Nomenclature. [August, 
SONao 2 , and the prefix “ hypo ” to the name of an acid 
indicates that the acid with the prefix contains less oxygen 
than the normal acid. In the case before us, however, the 
prefix was erroneously used to denote not a compound con- 
taining less oxygen, but one having an extra atom of sulphui. 
The salt Na 2 S 3 0 3 was thus _ incorrectly named at starting ; 
and when Schiitzenberger discovered the compound SNao 2 , 
which was the real hyposulphite, a difficulty certainly arose, 
— not in consequence of a change in theory necessitating 
a change in a significant name, but because an inconeCt 
name had been assigned to Na 2 S 2 0 3 , by Chaussier, at the 
outset. Clearly sulphosulphate or thiosulphate is the cor- 
rect name, and had the salt been thus designated at first 
there would not have been any difficulty caused by the dis- 
covery of the real hyposulphite. . 
I am not prepared to assert that no cases have ansen o 
a change in theory causing confusion in nomenclatuie, y 
rendering imperative the alteration of a significant name, 
but certainly the instance mentioned is not such a case. 
The utility of significant names is obvious, and it would 
be a great convenience (to take Mr. Fernseed’s illustration) 
if instead of calling a man John Smith it were possible to 
name him in such a manner as to indicate his mental, moral, 
and physical capacity and bias. We would then, on being 
introduced to any one, know how far his acquaintance was 
desirable. It is not possible at present to name persons in 
this manner, and so, when introduced to Mr. John Smith, 
we have to find out such of the above-mentioned particulars 
as we desire to know in the best way we can. This would 
never do in Science ; it would be fatal to further progress 
if there were a few hundred “John Smiths in Organic 
Chemistry, and we were compelled to find out by research 
of which one we had got hold. Thus, then, I contend that 
in ordinary life significant names would be very useful, and 
that the fadt that we manage to do without them is no 
argument against their use when such use is possible. 
Supposing that each chemist who invents a new com- 
pound (and there are scores of men who invent scores 
a-piece) were to name it anyhow, the confusion would put 
an end to all further research. A chemist works, for ex- 
ample, at the substitution derivatives of a hydrocarbon ; 
there may be scores of such derivatives, including isomeis,, 
and what would be the result were he to give them “ fancy 
names ? We might get several hundred organic compounds 
called “ Cinderalla,” for instance. 
At present significant names in Organic Chemistry, long 
