210 
Scientific Nomenclature . 
[April, 
It serves as a pigeon-hole into which we thrust all our 
knowledge bearing upon such thing, or a file or clip for 
holding the whole together. In itself it need have no feature 
save brevity. If without sacrificing brevity it can be made 
significant, so as to convey any piece of information con- 
cerning the thing named, — for instance its locality, its colour, 
its habits, or any other property, — so much the better ; but 
I, for one, am quite prepared to sacrifice all “ significance ” 
if it can only be purchased by the use of words of ten or 
twelve syllables. 
The other party insist upon it as a something essential 
that a name shall embody as much as possible of our know- 
ledge, or our opinions, concerning the thing. By so doing 
they present us with names which few people can remember 
so as to use in speaking, and which it is even very difficult 
to transcribe without stopping in the middle and referring 
to the original. Clerical and typographical errors are thus 
greatly encouraged. 
That “ significant ” names have some advantages it need 
not be denied ; but, as it has been often complained, these 
advantages are too dearly bought. To take a parallel case, 
it might often be convenient if the name of a man revealed 
to us the place where he was born, the maiden names of his 
mother and his grandmothers, his political and his religious 
creed, his balance at the bank, &c. But as a name to effect 
all these purposes would be exceedingly cumbrous, we find 
it simpler to call the man John Smith, understanding, rather 
than expressing, all such points as we know concerning his 
pedigree and his other attributes. This is every way more 
convenient, and a less strain upon our memory. Why 
should the case be different with, e.g., chemical com- 
pounds ? 
It must be had in remembrance that the information 
conveyed to us in a “ significant ” scientific nomenclature 
consists generally not so much of fadts as of opinions and 
theories. Time then rolls on, theories are laid aside, and a 
new name becomes necessary. This constant re-baptizing 
of objects is a serious hindrance to the spread of sound 
knowledge. The worst case is when a name is taken away 
from one body and applied to another. As an instance I 
may mention the salt sodium hyposulphite, familiar to pho- 
tographers. This name has been confiscated and handed 
over to the compound which Schtitzenberger and De Lalande 
had named sodium hydrosulphite, and which they used, e.g. f 
in the reduction of indigo. Meanwhile the original hypo- 
sulphite is dubbed sodium thiosulphate. Suppose, then, we 
