REPORT ON MINERALOGY. 
SGI 
III. Nomenclature. —Some of the authors of mineralogical clas¬ 
sifications have endeavoured to introduce a systematic nomencla¬ 
ture into the science. Mr. Mohs in particular has given a series of 
names almost wholly new to the species of the mineral kingdom. 
There is no doubt that mineralogical nomenclature has long 
been in such a state of perplexity and disorder, so defective in 
all valuable qualities, and so overloaded with useless synonyms, 
that any reformation of it would be a most important service. 
It appears reasonable to suppose also, that the introduction of 
a right and consistent classification ought to be attended in 
Mineralogy, as it was in Botany, with the introduction of a 
reformed and simplified language. But we may well doubt 
whether we have yet reached the point at which such a syste¬ 
matic reform is possible. Our genera and orders are probably 
too unstable to be made the basis of permanent names. Some 
of the groups of species, indeed, are pretty well characterized, 
and have in some degree influenced the common names ; thus, 
Iceland spar, or calc spar, fluor spar, heavy spar, iron spar, 
seem, by these names, to be referred to a natural order Spar. 
In like manner native gold, native platinum are connected by 
the form of their forms, as they are by the simplicity of their 
constitution. The oxides, as red copper oxide, red iron oxide, 
are a chemical order which can generally be recognised by their 
appearance, though at one extremity the metallic silicides ap¬ 
proach near to them. The orders Pyrites, Glance, Blende have 
been already noticed. Names referring to such groups as these 
seem more likely to be permanent than any others, though it 
must be acknowledged that such groups are often vague ; nor 
can we at present draw their boundary lines. In forming the 
names of species, the crystallization seems to give one of the 
best, because the most certain and definite, grounds of nomen¬ 
clature : hexahedral iron pyrites, rhombic iron pyrites, hexa¬ 
gonal iron pyrites are names which admit of no confusion. 
The disorder of our mineralogical nomenclature has been 
much increased by the facility with which new species have 
been assumed, and new names applied to them. The rebuke 
of Berzelius {J. B. vii. 180,) has not been uncalled for. “ The 
mineralogists par excellence ,” says he, “ that is, they who do 
not trouble themselves about the internal nature of minerals, 
appear to hold new names for an essential thing; for they hasten 
to give them before they can possibly know wdiether they have 
before them a combination already known or not.” In another 
place ( J. B. v. 197,) he appears to consider our countrymen as 
peculiarly given to offend in this respect. “ It is the fashion 
in England,” he says in 1824, “to seek new forms by crystal- 
