62 PKOFESSOR HAMILTON ON THE EEVIEW OF HIS ‘ SUGGESTIONS.’ 
“As no ingenuity or skill could convert into order the chaos of confusion 
which prevails in our present nomenclature, and as no new system, however 
perfect, could be readily substituted for an old and familiar one, however bad, 
the only practicable method of bringing about a change such as the condition 
of the science now requires is to use the language most familiar to us and most 
generally understood, for all the purposes of ready description and common dis¬ 
course, and to create an entirely new system of names, precise as the terms 
of mathematics, to be available in all cases where exactitude is required.” 
The reviewer will see from this passage that I have not been guilty of the 
egregious folly of supposing that an old and familiar nomenclature should or 
could be given up, and a new one, however perfect, adopted in its place. 
By all means let us continue to use our present nomenclature as it is, but 
when new names are required for new things, and when we desire to speak with 
a precision unattainable by the old method, let us have at least some principle 
to guide us, as nearly perfect as we can frame, to suit such cases as they occur. 
Old, inaccurate and confused names will, in time, by a natural decadence, give 
jdace to systematic and more exact ones, and the language of chemistry, instead 
of becoming more perplexing and perplexed by the progress of discovery, will be, 
like the science itself, constantly advancing towards a higher state of perfection. 
I am very little concerned about the fate of the “ Suggestions,” and very little 
inclined to defend the new names; but has the reviewer really succeeded in 
showing any inconsistency between the principles and the names ? “ The name 
for water,” the reviewer states, “ is hydretoxan, which implies that it is com¬ 
posed of two atoms or equivalents of hydrine and one of oxine. The name de¬ 
pends, therefore, on the proportional number of oxygen being 16.” Is not this 
“ involving a hypothetical view of the constitution of things” V 
I answer—(1.) When water is decomposed the products are, as a matter of 
fact^ two equivalent volumes of hydrine and one of oxine, the name hydretoxan 
therefore expresses this matter of fact ^ and involves no hypothesis whatever. ( 2 .) 
The name does not depend on the proportional number of oxygen being 16. It 
might be 8 or 100 , or 32 or 5^, or any other number, whole or mixed, provided 
such a number be taken for hydrogen that the proportion shall remain un¬ 
changed. 
Again, the name alumotoxin, AI 4 O 3 , A1 being 13'7 does not imply a different 
constitution for alumina, from that expressed by the name alumetoxin, AI 2 O 3 . 
A1 being 27‘5, both formulse, and consequently both names, express the sa^ne 
constitution. 
The difficulty of deciding whether corrosive sublimate should be called 
mercurachloran, HgCl, or mercurachloren, HgClg, is not one which pertains to 
nomenclature. It pertains to the state of our knowledge respecting a certain 
physical fact. The correct formula and the correct name are both determined, 
at once, the moment the correct equivalent of mercury is known. In all cases, 
then, wdiere correct equivalents are known, how could “ Mr. Hamilton’s system 
revive in full force those very difficulties ” ? “ Professor Hamilton’s scheme,” 
continues the review, “is only good so long as the table of combining propor¬ 
tions remains unchanged, and the formulse of bodies continue constant. But 
the former are always liable to alteration, and we can never hope for perfect 
accordance regarding the latter.” 
My very able and intelligent reviewer does not here mean that the proportions 
themselves in which bodies combine are liable to alteration, but that our conven¬ 
tional methods of representing those proportions are the subjects of change. 
Thus, if we take 0==8, and Fe = 28, then peroxide of iron is FcgOg, ferretoxin. 
But if we change the equivalent of O from 8 to 16, then peroxide of iron is 
Fe 4 03 , ferrotoxin. Isow, is not my scheme just as good after this change as it 
was before it. The name changes with the formula because the name expresses 
