335 
I 
- mid Mineralogy. 
ral history has been divided, botany is the most complete and 
advanced. The idea of natural history may, therefore, be de- 
veloped best by considering this division of it. Now, botany is 
nothing else than the science of finding the syskmaiic name of 
A PLANT, from its hnown or observed natural properties, that 
is to say, by means of its characters, or of finding the na- 
tural properties when the name is given; and all the arrange- 
ments, subdivisions and collocations employed by this science, 
are directed to that purpose. Natural history is therefore no- 
thing else than the science of finding the systematic name 
from the characters of a production of' nature generally, or 
vice versa ; and mineralogy nothing else than the science of 
finding the systematic name from the characters of a mine- 
ral, or vice versa ; and whatever has no reference to that ob- 
ject, does not belong to the science. 
56. Geognosy, Mineralogical Chemistry, ^c. ai'e essentially 
different from Mineralogy. — Now, neither geognosy, nor mi- 
neralogical chemistry, nor mineralogical geography, nor econo- 
mical mineralogy, propose as their object to find the name from 
the characters. Consequently, they are sciences altogether 
distinct from mineralogy, and "" though treating the same sub- 
ject as mineralogy, they treat it in quite a different point 
of view, and upon quite different principles. Every science 
ought studiously to be maintained in a state of purity, if we 
would screen it from final ruin, which, as exemplified by natu- 
ral history in the mineral kingdom, is otherwise unavoidable. 
Hence, nothing geognostic, nothing chemical, nothing geogra- 
phic, is suitable in mineralogy. It need hardly be mentioned, 
that in making these observations, I do not mean to censure the 
practice of bringing . forward descriptively in natural history 
such notices from other sciences that concern the productions of 
nature, as may illustrate the subject. Btill less do I intend 
to take from those sciences any portion of their credit. In- 
deed, it is abundantly clear, that, according to the opinions un- 
folded above, mineralogy, and the whole of natural history, is 
nothing but the mean of turning to profit by these modes, the 
proper knowledge (the true scientific knowledge) of the produc- 
tions of nature ; such productions, of course, as natural his- 
tory does not reject \—->so that we are not only to acquire much 
z 2 
