1884.] Scientific Nomenclature. 2,11 
find in a chemical work, or in a memoir, some mention of 
“ sodium hyposulphite,” we do not know which compound 
the author means. We may have to consider the date of 
the book, and reflect whether, according to our former know- 
ledge of him, the writer accepted or rejected this change in 
nomenclature. If these clues are wanting, we have then to 
judge which body is signified by our knowledge of its pro- 
perties. Thus, in fadt, the main advantage of a precise 
scientific technology is sacrificed to the rage for “significant ” 
names. 
I must, however, not forget that to one class of minds 
such revolutions are welcome. Certain authors are imme- 
diately engaged in translating the old matter into the 
language of the new theory, and can thus acquire a certain 
reputation without discovering a single fadt or making in 
any way the slightest addition to the sum of human know- 
ledge. 
In sciences where nomenclature does not depend on 
theories such troublesome changes are avoided. The astro- 
nomer applies still to the planets and the fixed stars the 
same names that were used in the pre-Newtonian or the pre- 
Copernican times, new appellations being needed only for 
heavenly bodies since discovered. This permanence in ter- 
minology is rendered possible by the fadt that these names 
are not linked to any theory, and aim merely at identifying, 
not at defining or describing, their objects. - 
In Chemistry, as I have already intimated, a long, cum- 
brous nomenclature, intended to define rather than simply 
to mark out, has reached its greatest height, and become a 
crying evil. This circumstance is perhaps due in no small 
part to the fadt that the modern development of the science, 
especially of that portion which deals with the compounds 
of carbon, has been chiefly in the hands of the Germans. 
This nation, not merely in scientific matters, but in the 
affairs of common life, seems to delight in a long-winded, 
sesquipedalian nomenclature. Their books, their journals, 
their societies, the titles of their officials, &c., have names 
disagreeably long for quotation or reference. Where we and 
our American kinsmen are content to identify, they still seek 
to add all manner of circumstances. What wonder that 
they have carried the same habits of thought and the same 
principles into their chemical nomenclature ? 
In Mineralogy, though many defedts are to be recognised, 
yet upon the whole a healthier spirit prevails. A new in- 
sight into the composition of a mineral does not necessarily 
lead to a change of name. The names, too, are for the 
