Chapter XXVII: Introduction (3)

[Note 46\4: In like manner the names assigned by Mr. Rickman to the successive of styles of Gothic architecture in England,--_Early English_, _Decorated_, and _Perpendicular_,--cannot be replaced by numerical designations, _First Pointed_, _Second Pointed_, _Third Pointed_. For--besides that he who first distinctly establishes classes has the right of naming them, and that Mr. Rickman's names are really appropriate and significant--these new names would confound all meaning of language. We should not be able to divide Early English, or Decorated, or Perpendicular into sub-styles;--for who could talk of _First Second Pointed_ and _Second Second Pointed_; and what should we call that pointed style--the _Transition_ from the Norman--which precedes the _First Pointed_?]

APHORISM XVII.

_In any classificatory science names including more than two steps of the classification may be employed if it be found convenient._

LINNÆUS, in his canons for botanical nomenclature (Art. 212), says that the names of the class and the order are to be _mute_, while the names of the Genus and Species are _sonorous_. And accordingly the names {311} of plants (and the same is true of animals) have in common practice been binary only, consisting of a generic and a specific name. The class and the order have not been admitted to form part of the appellation of the species. Indeed it is easy to see that a name, which must be identical in so many instances as that of an Order would be, would be felt as superfluous and burthensome. Accordingly, Linnæus makes it one of his maxims[47\4], that the name of the Class and Order must not be expressed but understood, and hence, he says, Royen, who took _Lilium_ for the name of a Class, rightly rejected this word as a generic name, and substituted _Lirium_ with the Greek termination.

[Note 47\4: _Phil. Bot._ s. 215.]

Yet we must not too peremptorily assume such maxims as these to be universal for all classificatory sciences. It is very possible that it may be found advisable to use _three_ terms, that of Order, Genus, and Species in designating minerals, as is done in Mohs's nomenclature, for example, _Rhombohedral Calc Haloide_, _Paratomous Hal Baryte_.

It is possible also that it may be found useful in the same science (Mineralogy) to mark some of the steps of classification by the termination. Thus it has been proposed to confine the termination _ite_ to the Order _Silicides_ of Naumann, as Apophyll_ite_, Stilb_ite_, Leuc_ite_, &c., and to use names of different form in other orders, as Talc _Spar_ for Brennerite, Pyramidal Titanium _Oxide_ for Octahedrite. Some such method appears to be the most likely to give us a tolerable mineralogical nomenclature.

APHORISM XVIII.

_In forming a Terminology, words may be invented when necessary, but they cannot be conveniently borrowed from casual or arbitrary circumstances_[48\4].

[Note 48\4: I may also refer to _Hist. Sc. Id._ b. viii. c. ii. sec. 2, for some remarks on Terminology.]

IT will be recollected that Terminology is a language employed for describing objects, Nomenclature, a body {312} of names of the objects themselves. The _names_, as was stated in the last maxim, may be arbitrary; but the _descriptive_ terms must be borrowed from words of suitable meaning in the modern or the classical languages. Thus the whole terminology which Linnæus introduced into botany, is founded upon the received use of Latin words, although he defined their meaning so as to make it precise when it was not so, according to Aphorism V. But many of the terms were invented by him and other botanists, as _Perianth_, _Nectary_, _Pericarp_; so many, indeed, as to form, along with the others, a considerable language. Many of the terms which are now become familiar were originally invented by writers on botany. Thus the word _Petal_, for one division of the corolla, was introduced by Fabius Columna. The term _Sepal_ was devised by Necker to express each of the divisions of the calyx. And up to the most recent times, new denominations of parts and conditions of parts have been devised by botanists, when they found them necessary, in order to mark important differences or resemblances. Thus the general _Receptacle_ of the flower, as it is termed by Linnæus, or _Torus_ by Salisbury, is continued into organs which carry the stamina and pistil, or the pistil alone, or the whole flower; this organ has hence been termed[49\4] _Gonophore_, _Carpophore_, and _Anthophore_, in these cases.

[Note 49\4: De Candolle's _Th. El._ 405.]

In like manner when Cuvier had ascertained that the lower jaws of Saurians consisted always of six pieces having definite relations of form and position, he gave names to them, and termed them respectively the _Dental_, the _Angular_, the _Coronoid_, the _Articular_, the _Complementary_, and the _Opercular_ Bones.

In all these cases, the descriptive terms thus introduced have been significant in their derivation. An attempt to circulate a perfectly arbitrary word as a means of description would probably be unsuccessful. We have, indeed, some examples approaching to arbitrary designations, in the Wernerian names of colours, {313} which are a part of the terminology of Natural History. Many of these names are borrowed from natural resemblances, as _Auricula purple_, _Apple green_, _Straw yellow_; but the names of others are taken from casual occurrences, mostly, however, such as were already recognized in common language, as _Prussian blue_, _Dutch orange_, _King's yellow_.

The extension of arbitrary names in scientific terminology is by no means to be encouraged. I may mention a case in which it was very properly avoided. When Mr. Faraday's researches on Voltaic electricity had led him to perceive the great impropriety of the term _poles_, as applied to the apparatus, since the processes have not reference to any opposed points, but to two opposite directions of a path, he very suitably wished to substitute for the phrases _positive pole_ and _negative pole_, two words ending in _ode_, from ὅδος, a way. A person who did not see the value of our present maxim, that descriptive terms should be descriptive in their origin, might have proposed words perfectly arbitrary, as _Alphode_, and _Betode_: or, if he wished to pay a tribute of respect to the discoverers in this department of science, _Galvanode_ and _Voltaode_, But such words would very justly have been rejected by Mr. Faraday, and would hardly have obtained any general currency among men of science. _Zincode_ and _Platinode_, terms derived from the metal which, in one modification of the apparatus, forms what was previously termed the pole, are to be avoided, because in their origin too much is casual; and they are not a good basis for derivative terms. The pole at which the zinc is, is the Anode or Cathode, according as it is associated with different metals. Either the _Zincode_ must sometimes mean the pole at which the Zinc is, and at other times that at which the Zinc is not, or else we must have as many names for poles as there are metals. _Anode_ and _Cathode_, the terms which Mr. Faraday adopted, were free from these objections; for they refer to a natural standard of the direction of the voltaic current, in a manner which, though perhaps not obvious at first sight, is easily understood and {314} retained. _An_ode and _Cath_ode, the _rising_ and the _setting_ way, are the directions which correspond to east and west in that voltaic current to which we must ascribe terrestrial magnetism. And with these words it was easy to connect _Anïon_ and _Cathïon_, to designate the opposite elements which are separated and liberated at the two _Electrodes_.

APHORISM XIX.

_The meaning of Technical Terms must be fixed by convention, not by casual reference to the ordinary meaning of words._

IN fixing the meaning of the Technical Terms which form the Terminology of any science, at least of the descriptive Terms, we necessarily fix, at the same time, the perceptions and notions which the Terms are to convey to a hearer. What do we mean by _apple-green_ or _French grey_? It might, perhaps, be supposed that, in the first example, the term _apple_, referring to so familiar an object, sufficiently suggests the colour intended. But it may easily be seen that this is not true; for apples are of many different hues of green, and it is only by a conventional selection that we can appropriate the term to one special shade. When this appropriation is once made, the term refers to the sensation, and not to the parts of this term; for these enter into the compound merely as a help to the memory, whether the suggestion be a natural connexion as in 'apple-green,' or a casual one as in 'French grey.' In order to derive due advantage from technical terms of this kind, they must be associated _immediately_ with the perception to which they belong; and not connected with it through the vague usages of common language. The memory must retain the sensation; and the technical word must be understood as directly as the most familiar word, and more distinctly. When we find such terms as _tin-white_ or _pinchbeck-brown_, the metallic colour so denoted ought to start up in our memory without delay or search. {315}

This, which it is most important to recollect with respect to the simpler properties of bodies, as colour and form, is no less true with respect to more compound notions. In all cases the term is fixed to a peculiar meaning by convention; and the student, in order to use the word, must be completely familiar with the convention, so that he has no need to frame conjectures from the word itself. Such conjectures would always be insecure, and often erroneous. Thus the term _papilionaceous_, applied to a flower, is employed to indicate, not only a resemblance to a butterfly, but a resemblance arising from five petals of a certain peculiar shape and arrangement; and even if the resemblance to a butterfly were much stronger than it is in such cases, yet if it were produced in a different way, as, for example, by one petal, or two only, instead of a 'standard,' two 'wings,' and a 'keel' consisting of two parts more or less united into one, we should no longer be justified in speaking of it as a 'papilionaceous' flower.

The formation of an exact and extensive descriptive language for botany has been executed with a degree of skill and felicity, which, before it was attained, could hardly have been dreamt of as attainable. Every part of a plant has been named; and the form of every part, even the most minute, has had a large assemblage of descriptive terms appropriated to it, by means of which the botanist can convey and receive knowledge of form and structure, as exactly as if each minute part were presented to him vastly magnified. This acquisition was part of the Linnæan Reform, of which we have spoken in the _History_. 'Tournefort,' says De Candolle[50\4], 'appears to have been the first who really perceived the utility of fixing the sense of terms in such a way as always to employ the same word in the same sense, and always to express the same idea by the same word; but it was Linnæus who really created and fixed this botanical language, and this is his fairest claim to glory, for by this fixation of language he has shed clearness and precision over all parts of the science.'

[Note 50\4: _Théor. Élém._ p. 327.]

{316} It is not necessary here to give any detailed account of the terms of botany. The fundamental ones have been gradually introduced, as the parts of plants were more carefully and minutely examined. Thus the flower was successively distinguished into the _calyx_, the _corolla_, the _stamens_, and the _pistils_: the sections of the corolla were termed _petals_ by Columna; those of the calyx were called _sepals_ by Necker[51\4]. Sometimes terms of greater generality were devised; as _perianth_ to include the calyx and corolla, whether one or both of these were present[52\4]; _pericarp_ for the part inclosing the grain, of whatever kind it be, fruit, nut, pod, &c. And it may easily be imagined that descriptive terms may, by definition and combination, become very numerous and distinct. Thus leaves may be called _pinnatifid_[53\4], _pinnnatipartite_, _pinnatisect_, _pinnatilobate_, _palmatifid_, _palmatipartite_, &c., and each of these words designates different combinations of the modes and extent of the divisions of the leaf with the divisions of its outline. In some cases arbitrary numerical relations are introduced into the definition: thus a leaf is called _bilobate_[54\4] when it is divided into two parts by a notch; but if the notch go to the middle of its length, it is _bifid_; if it go near the base of the leaf, it is _bipartite_; if to the base, it is _bisect_. Thus, too, a pod of a cruciferous plant is a _silica_[55\4] if it be four times as long as it is broad, but if it be shorter than this it is a _silicula_. Such terms being established, the form of the very complex leaf or frond of a fern is exactly conveyed, for example, by the following phrase: 'fronds rigid pinnate, pinnæ recurved subunilateral pinnatifid, the segments linear undivided or bifid spinuloso-serrate[56\4].'

[Note 51\4: De Candolle, 329.]

[Note 52\4: For this Erhart and De Candolle use _Perigone_.]

[Note 53\4: De Candolle, 318.]

[Note 54\4: _Ibid._ 493.]

[Note 55\4: _Ibid._ 422.]

[Note 56\4: Hooker, _Brit. Flo._ p. 450. _Hymenophyllum Wilsoni_, Scottish filmy fern, abundant in the highlands of Scotland and about Killarney.]

Other characters, as well as form, are conveyed with the like precision: Colour by means of a classified scale of colours, as we have seen in speaking of the Measures {317} of Secondary Qualities; to which, however, we must add, that the naturalist employs arbitrary names, (such as we have already quoted,) and not mere numerical exponents, to indicate a certain number of selected colours. This was done with most precision by Werner, and his scale of colours is still the most usual standard of naturalists. Werner also introduced a more exact terminology with regard to other characters which are important in mineralogy, as lustre, hardness. But Mohs improved upon this step by giving a numerical scale of hardness, in which _talc_ is 1, _gypsum_, 2, _calc spar_ 3, and so on, as we have already explained in the History of Mineralogy. Some properties, as specific gravity, by their definition give at once a numerical measure; and others, as crystalline form, require a very considerable array of mathematical calculation and reasoning, to point out their relations and gradations. In all cases the features of likeness in the objects must be rightly apprehended, in order to their being expressed by a distinct terminology. Thus no terms could describe crystals for any purpose of natural history, till it was discovered that in a class of minerals the proportion of the faces might vary, while the angle remained the same. Nor could crystals be described so as to distinguish species, till it was found that the derived and primitive forms are connected by very simple relations of space and number. The discovery of the mode in which characters must be apprehended so that they may be considered as _fixed_ for a class, is an important step in the progress of each branch of Natural History; and hence we have had, in the History of Mineralogy and Botany, to distinguish as important and eminent persons those who made such discoveries, Romé de Lisle and Haüy, Cæsalpinus and Gesner.

By the continued progress of that knowledge of minerals, plants, and other natural objects, in which such persons made the most distinct and marked steps, but which has been constantly advancing in a more gradual and imperceptible manner, the most important and essential features of similarity and dissimilarity in such objects have been selected, arranged, and fitted with {318} names; and we have thus in such departments, systems of Terminology which fix our attention upon the resemblances which it is proper to consider, and enable us to convey them in words.

The following Aphorisms respect the Form of Technical Terms.

By the _Form_ of terms, I mean their philological conditions; as, for example, from what languages they may be borrowed, by what modes of inflexion they must be compounded, how their derivatives are to be formed, and the like. In this, as in other parts of the subject, I shall not lay down a system of rules, but shall propose a few maxims.

APHORISM XX.

_The two main conditions of the Form of technical terms are, that they must be generally intelligible, and susceptible of such grammatical relations as their scientific use requires._

THESE conditions may at first appear somewhat vague, but it will be found that they are as definite as we could make them, without injuriously restricting ourselves. It will appear, moreover, that they have an important bearing upon most of the questions respecting the form of the words which come before us; and that if we can succeed in any case in reconciling the two conditions, we obtain terms which are practically good, whatever objections may be urged against them from other considerations.

1. The former condition, for instance, bears upon the question whether scientific terms are to be taken from the learned languages, Greek and Latin, or from our own. And the latter condition very materially affects the same question, since in English we have scarcely any power of inflecting our words; and therefore must have recourse to Greek or Latin in order to obtain terms which admit of grammatical modification. If we were content with the term _Heat_, to express the _science_ of heat, still it would be a bad technical term, for we cannot derive from it an adjective like {319} _thermotical_. If _bed_ or _layer_ were an equally good term with _stratum_, we must still retain the latter, in order that we may use the derivative _Stratification_, for which the English words cannot produce an equivalent substitute. We may retain the words _lime_ and _flint_, but their adjectives for scientific purposes are not _limy_ and _flinty_, but _calcareous_ and _siliceous_; and hence we are able to form a compound, as _calcareo-siliceous_, which we could not do with indigenous words. We might fix the phrases _bent back_ and _broken_ to mean (of optical rays) that they are reflected and refracted; but then we should have no means of speaking of the angles of _Reflection_ and _Refraction_, of the _Refractive_ Indices, and the like.

In like manner, so long as anatomists described certain parts of a vertebra as _vertebral laminæ_, or _vertebral plates_, they had no adjective whereby to signify the properties of these parts; the term _Neurapophysis_, given to them by Mr. Owen, supplies the corresponding expression _neurapophysial_. So again, the term _Basisphenoid_, employed by the same anatomist, is better than _basilar_ or _basial process of the sphenoid_, because it gives us the adjective _basisphenoidal_. And the like remark applies to other changes recently proposed in the names of portions of the skeleton.

Thus one of the advantages of going to the Greek and Latin languages for the origin of our scientific terms is, that in this way we obtain words which admit of the formation of adjectives and abstract terms, and of composition, and of other inflexions. Another advantage of such an origin is, that such terms, if well selected, are readily understood over the whole lettered world. For this reason, the descriptive language of science, of botany for instance, has been, for the most part, taken from the Latin; many of the terms of the mathematical and chemical sciences have been derived from the Greek; and when occasion occurs to construct a new term, it is generally to that language that recourse is had. The advantage of such terms is, as has already been intimated, that they constitute an universal language, by means of which {320} cultivated persons in every country may convey to each other their ideas without the need of translation.

On the other hand, the advantage of indigenous terms is, that so far as the language extends, they are intelligible much more clearly and vividly than those borrowed from any other source, as well as more easily manageable in the construction of sentences. In the descriptive language of botany, for example, in an English work, the terms _drooping_, _nodding_, _one-sided_, _twining_, _straggling_, appear better than _cernuous_, _nutant_, _secund_, _volubile_, _divaricate_. For though the latter terms may by habit become as intelligible as the former, they cannot become more so to any readers; and to most English readers they will give a far less distinct impression.

2. Since the advantage of indigenous over learned terms, or the contrary, depends upon the balance of the capacity of inflexion and composition on the one hand, against a ready and clear significance on the other, it is evident that the employment of scientific terms of the one class or of the other may very properly be extremely different in different languages. The German possesses in a very eminent degree that power of composition and derivation, which in English can hardly be exercised at all, in a formal manner. Hence German scientific writers use native terms to a far greater extent than do our own authors. The descriptive terminology of botany, and even the systematic nomenclature of chemistry, are represented by the Germans by means of German roots and inflexions. Thus the description of _Potentilla anserina_, in English botanists, is that it has _Leaves interruptedly pinnate_, _serrate_, _silky_, _stem creeping_, _stalks axilllar_, _one-flowered_. Here we have words of Saxon and Latin origin mingled pretty equally. But the German description is entirely Teutonic. _Die Blume in Achsel_; _die Blätter unterbrochen gefiedert_, _die Blättchen scharf gesagt_, _die Stämme kriechend_, _die Bluthenstiele einblumig_. We could imitate this in our own language, by saying _brokenly-feathered_, _sharp-sawed_; by using _threed_ for _ternate_, as the Germans employ _gedreit_; by saying {321} _fingered-feathered_ for _digitato-pinnate_, and the like. But the habit which we have, in common as well as scientific language, of borrowing words from the Latin for new cases, would make such usages seem very harsh and pedantic.

We may add that, in consequence of these different practices in the two languages, it is a common habit of the German reader to impose a scientific definiteness upon a common word, such as our Fifth Aphorism requires; whereas the English reader expects rather that a word which is to have a technical sense shall be derived from the learned languages. _Die Kelch_ and _die Blume_ (the cup and the flower) easily assume the technical meaning of _calyx_ and _corolla_; _die Griffel_ (the pencil) becomes _the pistil_; and a name is easily found for the _pollen_, the _anthers_, and the _stamens_, by calling them the dust, the dust-cases, and the dust-threads (_der Staub_, _die Staub-beutel_, or _Staub-fächer_, and _die Staub-fäden_), This was formerly done in English to a greater extent than is now possible without confusion and pedantry. Thus, in Grew's book on the _Anatomy of Plants_, the calyx is called the _impalement_, and the sepals the _impalers_; the petals are called the _leaves of the flower_; the stamens with their anthers are the _seminiform attire_. But the English language, as to such matters, is now less flexible than it was; partly in consequence of its having adopted the Linnæan terminology almost entire, without any endeavour to naturalize it. Any attempt at idiomatic description would interfere with the scientific language now generally received in this country. In Germany, on the other hand, those who first wrote upon science in their own language imitated the Latin words which they found in foreign writers, instead of transferring new roots into their own language. Thus the _Numerator_ and _Denominator_ of a fraction they call the _Namer_ and the _Counter_ (_Nenner_ and _Zähler_). This course they pursued even where the expression was erroneous. Thus that portion of the intestines which ancient anatomists called _Duodenum_, because they falsely estimated its length at twelve inches, the {322} Germans also term _Zwölffingerdarm_ (twelve-inch-gut), though this intestine in a whale is twenty feet long, and in a frog not above twenty lines. As another example of this process in German, we may take the word _Muttersackbauchblatte_, the _uterine peritonæum_.

It is a remarkable evidence of this formative power of the German language, that it should have been able to produce an imitation of the systematic chemical nomenclature of the French school, so complete, that it is used in Germany as familiarly as the original system is in France and England. Thus Oxygen and Hydrogen are _Sauerstoff_ and _**Wasserstoff_; Azote is _Stickstoff_ (suffocating matter); Sulphuric and Sulphurous Acid are _Schwefel-säure_ and _Schwefelichte-säure_. The Sulphate and Sulphite of Baryta, and Sulphuret of Baryum, are _Schwefel-säure Baryterde_, _Schwefelichte-säure Baryterde_, and _Schwefel-baryum_. Carbonate of Iron is _Kohlen-säures Eisenoxydul_; and we may observe that, in such cases, the German name is much more agreeable to analogy than the English one; for the Protoxide of Iron, (_Eisenoxydul_,) and not the Iron itself, is the base of the salt. And the German language has not only thus imitated the established nomenclature of chemistry, but has shown itself capable of supplying new forms to meet the demands which the progress of theory occasions. Thus the Hydracids are _Wasserstoff-säuren_; and of these, the Hydriodic Acid is _Iodwasserstoff-säure_, and so of the rest. In like manner, the translator of Berzelius has found German names for the sulpho-salts of that chemist; thus he has _Wasserstoffschwefliges Schewefellithium_, which would be (if we were to adopt his theoretical view) hydro-sulphuret of sulphuret of lithium: and a like nomenclature for all other similar cases.

3. In English we have no power of imitating this process, and must take our technical phrases from some more flexible language, and generally from the Latin or Greek. We are indeed so much accustomed to do this, that except a word has its origin in one of these languages, it hardly seems to us a technical {323} term; and thus by employing indigenous terms, even descriptive ones, we may, perhaps, lose in precision more than we gain in the vividness of the impression. Perhaps it may be better to say _cuneate_, _lunate_, _hastate_, _sagittate_, _reniform_, than _wedge-shaped_, _crescent-shaped_, _halbert-headed_, _arrow-headed_, _kidney-shaped_. _Ringent_ and _personate_ are better than any English words which we could substitute for them; _labiate_ is more precise than _lipped_ would readily become. _Urceolate_, _trochlear_, are more compact than _pitcher-shaped_, _pulley-shaped_; and _infundibuliform_, _hypocrateriform_, though long words, are not more inconvenient than _funnel-shaped_ and _salver-shaped_. In the same way it is better to speak (with Dr. Prichard[57\4],) of _repent_ and _progressive_ animals, than of _creeping_ and progressive: the two Latin terms make a better pair of correlatives.

[Note 57\4: _Researches_, p. 69.]

4. But wherever we may draw the line between the proper use of English and Latin terms in descriptive phraseology, we shall find it advisable to borrow almost all other technical terms from the learned languages. We have seen this in considering the new terms introduced into various sciences in virtue of our Ninth Maxim. We may add, as further examples, the names of the various animals of which a knowledge has been acquired from the remains of them which exist in various strata, and which have been reconstructed by Cuvier and his successors. Such are the _Palæotherium_, the _Anoplotherium_, the _Megatherium_, the _Dinotherium_, the _Chirotherium_, the _Megalichthys_, the _Mastodon_, the _Ichthyosaurus_, the _Plesiosaurus_, the _Pterodactylus_. To these others are every year added; as, for instance, very recently, the _Toxodon_, _Zeuglodon_, and _Phascolotherium_ of Mr. Owen, and the _Thylacotherium_ of M. Valenciennes. Still more recently the terms _Glyptodon_, _Mylodon_, _Dicynodon_, _Paloplotherium_, _Rhynchosaurus_, have been added by Mr. Owen to designate fossil animals newly determined by him. {324}

The names of species, as well as of genera, are thus formed from the Greek: as the Plesiosaurus _dolichodeirus_ (long-necked), Ichthyosaurus _platyodon_ (broad-toothed), the Irish elk, termed Cervus _megaceros_ (large-horned). But the descriptive specific names are also taken from the Latin, as Plesiosaurus _brevirostris_, _longirostris_, _crassirostris_; besides which there are arbitrary specific names, which we do not here consider.

These names being all constructed at a period when naturalists were familiar with an artificial system, the standard language of which is Latin, have not been taken from modern language. But the names of living animals, and even of their classes, long ago formed in the common language of men, have been in part adopted in the systems of naturalists, agreeably to Aphorism Third. Hence the language of systems in natural history is mixed of ancient and modern languages. Thus Cuvier's divisions of the vertebrated animals are _Mammifères_ (Latin), _Oiseaux_, _Reptiles_, _Poissons_; _Bimanes_, _Quadrumanes_, _Carnassières_, _Rongeurs_, _Pachydermes_ (Greek), _Ruminans_ (Latin), _Cétacés_ (Latin). In the subordinate divisions the distribution being more novel, the names are less idiomatic: thus the kinds of Reptiles are _Cheloniens_, _Sauriens_, _Ophidiens_, _Batraciens_, all which are of Greek origin. In like manner. Fish are divided into _Chondropterygiens_, _Malacopterygiens_, _Acanthopterygiens_. The unvertebrated animals are _Mollusques_, _Animaux articulés_, and _Animaux rayonnés_; and the Mollusques are divided into six classes, chiefly according to the position or form of their foot; namely, _Cephalopodes_, _Pteropodes_, _Gasteropodes_, _Acephales_, _Brachiopodes_, _Cirrhopodes_.

In transferring these terms into English, when the term is new in French as well as English, we have little difficulty; for we may take nearly the same liberties in English which are taken in French; and hence we may say _mammifers_ (rather _mammals_), _cetaceans_ or _cetaces_, _batracians_ (rather _batrachians_), using the words as substantives. But in other cases we must go back to the Latin: thus we say _radiate_ {325} animals, or _radiata_ (rather _radials_), for _rayonnés_. These changes, however, rather refer to another Aphorism.

(Mr. Kirby has proposed _radiary_, _radiaries_, for _radiata_.)

5. When new Mineral Species have been established in recent times, they have generally had arbitrary names assigned to them, derived from some person or places. In some instances, however, descriptive names have been selected; and then these have been generally taken from the Greek, as _Augite_, _Stilbite_, _Diaspore_, _Dichroite_, _Dioptase_. Several of these Greek names imposed by Haüy, refer to some circumstances, often fancifully selected, in his view of the crystallization of the substance, as _Epidote_, _Peridote_, _Pleonast_. Similar terms of Greek origin have been introduced by others, as _Orthite_, _Anorthite_, _Periklin_. Greek names founded on casual circumstances are less to be commended. Berzelius has termed a mineral _Eschynite_ from αἰσχυνὴ, _shame_, because it is, he conceives, a shame for chemists not to have separated its elements more distinctly than they did at first.

6. In Botany, the old names of genera of Greek origin are very numerous, and many of them are descriptive, as _Glycyrhiza_ (γλυκὺς and ῥιζα, sweet root) liquorice, _Rhododendron_ (rose-tree), _Hæmatoxylon_ (bloody wood), _Chrysocoma_ (golden hair), _Alopecurus_ (fox-tail), and many more. In like manner there are names which derive a descriptive significance from the Latin, either adjectives, as _Impatiens_, _Gloriosa_, _Sagittaria_, or substantives irregularly formed, as _Tussilago_ (à tussis domatione), _Urtica_ (ab urendo tactu), _Salsola_ (à salsedine). But these, though good names when they are established by tradition, are hardly to be imitated in naming new plants. In most instances, when this is to be done, arbitrary or local names have been selected, as _Strelitzia_.

7. In Chemistry, new substances have of late had names assigned them from Greek roots, as _Iodine_, from its violet colour, _Chlorine_ from its green colour. In like manner fluorine has by the French chemists been called _Phthor_, from its destructive properties. So the {326} new metals, _Chrome_, _Rhodium_, _Iridium_, _Osmium_, had names of Greek derivation descriptive of their properties. Some such terms, however, were borrowed from localities, as _Strontia_, _Yttria_, the names of new earths. Others have a mixed origin, as _Pyrogallic_, _Pyroacetic_, and _Pyroligneous_ Spirit. In some cases the derivation has been extravagantly capricious. Thus in the process for making Pyrogallic Acid, a certain substance is left behind, from which M. Braconnot extracted an acid which he called _Ellagic_ Acid, framing the root of the name by reading the word _Galle_ backwards.

The new laws which the study of Electro-chemistry brought into view, required a new terminology to express their conditions: and in this case, as we have observed in speaking of the Twelfth Maxim, arbitrary words are less suitable. Mr. Faraday very properly borrowed from the Greek his terms _Electrolyte_, _Electrode_, _Anode_, _Cathode_, _Anïon_, _Cathïon_, _Dielectric_. In the mechanico-chemical and mechanical sciences, however, new terms are less copiously required than in the sciences of classification, and when they are needed, they are generally determined by analogy from existing terms. _Thermo-electricity_ and _Electro-dynamics_ were terms which very naturally offered themselves; Nobili's _thermo-multiplier_, Snow Harris's _unit-jar_, were almost equally obvious names. In such cases, it is generally possible to construct terms both compendious and descriptive, without introducing any new radical words.

8. The subject of Crystallography has inevitably given rise to many new terms, since it brings under our notice a great number of new relations of a very definite but very complex form. Haüy attempted to find names for all the leading varieties of crystals, and for this purpose introduced a great number of new terms, founded on various analogies and allusions. Thus the forms of calc-spar are termed by him _primitive_, _equiaxe_, _inverse_, _metastatique_, _contrastante_, _imitable_, _birhomboidale_, _prismatique_, _apophane_, _uniternaire_, _bisunitaire_, _dodécaèdre_, _contractée_, _dilatée_, _sexduodecimale_, _bisalterne_, _binoternaire_, and many others. The {327} want of uniformity in the origin and scheme of these denominations would be no valid objection to them, if any general truth could be expressed by means of them: but the fact is, that there is no definite distinction of these forms. They pass into each other by insensible gradations, and the optical and physical properties which they possess are common to all of them. And as a mere enunciation of laws of form, this terminology is insufficient. Thus it does not at all convey the relation between the _bisalterne_ and the _binoternaire_, the former being a combination of the _metastatique_ with the _prismatique_, the latter, of the _metastatique_ with the _contrastante_: again, the _contrastante_, the _mixte_, the _cuboide_, the _contractée_, the _dilatée_, all contain faces generated by a common law, the index being respectively altered so as to be in these cases, 3, 3/2, 4/5, 9/4, 5/9; and this, which is the most important geometrical relation of these forms, is not at all recorded or indicated by the nomenclature. The fact is, that it is probably impossible, the subject of crystallography having become so complex as it now is, to devise a system of names which shall express the relations of form. Numerical symbols, such as those of Weiss or Naumann, or Professor Miller, are the proper ways of expressing these relations, and are the only good crystallographic terminology for cases in detail.

The terms used in expressing crystallographic laws have been for the most part taken from the Greek by all writers except some of the Germans. These, we have already stated, have constructed terms in their own language, as _zwei-und-ein gliedrig_, and the like.

In Optics we have some new terms connected with crystalline laws, as _uniaxal_ and _biaxal_ crystals, _optical axes_, which offered themselves without any effort on the part of the discoverers. In the whole history of the undulatory theory, very few innovations in language were found necessary, except to fix the sense of a few phrases, as _plane-polarized_ light in opposition to _circularly-polarized_, and the like.

This is still more the case in Mechanics, Astronomy, {328} and pure mathematics. In these sciences, several of the primary stages of generalization being already passed over, when any new steps are made, we have before us some analogy by which we may frame our new terms. Thus when the _plane of maximum areas_ was discovered, it had not some new arbitrary denomination assigned it, but the name which obviously described it was fixed as a technical name.

The result of this survey of the scientific terms of recent formation seems to be this;--that indigenous terms may be employed in the descriptions of facts and phenomena as they at first present themselves; and in the first induction from these; but that when we come to generalize and theorize, terms borrowed from the learned languages are more readily fixed and made definite, and are also more easily connected with derivatives. Our native terms are more impressive, and at first more intelligible; but they may wander from their scientific meaning, and are capable of little inflexion. Words of classical origin are precise to the careful student, and capable of expressing, by their inflexions, the relations of general ideas; but they are unintelligible, even to the learned man, without express definition, and convey instruction only through an artificial and rare habit of thought.

Since in the balance between words of domestic and of foreign origin so much depends upon the possibility of inflexion and derivation, I shall consider a little more closely what are the limits and considerations which we have to take into account in reference to that subject.

APHORISM XXI.

_In the composition and inflexion of technical terms, philological analogies are to be preserved if possible, but modified according to scientific convenience._

IN the language employed or proposed by writers upon subjects of science, many combinations and forms of derivation occur, which would be rejected and condemned by those who are careful of the purity and {329} correctness of language. Such anomalies are to be avoided as much as possible; but it is impossible to escape them altogether, if we are to have a scientific language which has any chance of being received into general use. It is better to admit compounds which are not philologically correct, than to invent many new words, all strange to the readers for whom they are intended: and in writing on science in our own language, it is not possible to avoid making additions to the vocabulary of common life; since science requires exact names for many things which common language has not named. And although these new names should, as much as possible, be constructed in conformity with the analogies of the language, such extensions of analogy can hardly sound, to the grammarian's ear, otherwise than as solecisms. But, as our maxim indicates, the analogy of science is of more weight with us than the analogy of language: and although anomalies in our phraseology should be avoided as much as possible, innovations must be permitted wherever a scientific language, easy to acquire, and convenient to use, is unattainable without them.

I shall proceed to mention some of the transgressions of strict philological rules, and some of the extensions of grammatical forms, which the above conditions appear to render necessary.

1. The combination of different languages in the derivation of words, though to be avoided in general, is in some cases admissible.

Such words are condemned by Quintilian and other grammarians, under the name of hybrids, or things of a mixed race; as _biclinium_ from _bis_ and κλίνη; _epitogium_, from ἐπὶ and _toga_. Nor are such terms to be unnecessarily introduced in science. Whenever a homogeneous word can be formed and adopted with the same ease and convenience as a hybrid, it is to be preferred. Hence we must have _ichthyology_, not _piscology_, _entomology_, not _insectology_, _insectivorous_, not _insectophagous_. In like manner, it would be better to say _unoculus_ than _monoculus_, though the latter has the sanction of Linnæus, who was a purist in such matters. {330} Dr. Turner, in his _Chemistry_, speaks of _protoxides_ and _binoxides_, which combination violates the rule for making the materials of our terms as homogeneous as possible; _protoxide_ and _deutoxide_ would be preferable, both on this and on other accounts.

Yet this rule admits of exceptions. _Mineralogy_, with its Greek termination, has for its root _minera_, a medieval Latin word of Teutonic origin, and is preferable to _Oryctology_. _Terminology_ appears to be better than _Glossology_: which according to its derivation would be rather the science of language in general than of technical terms; and _Horology_, from ὅρος, a term, would not be immediately intelligible, even to Greek scholars; and is already employed to indicate the science which treats of horologes, or time-pieces.

Indeed, the English reader is become quite familiar with the termination _ology_, the names of a large number of branches of science and learning having that form. This termination is at present rather apprehended as a formative affix in our own language, indicating a science, than as an element borrowed from foreign language. Hence, when it is difficult or impossible to find a Greek term which clearly designates the subject of a science, it is allowable to employ some other, as in _Tidology_, the doctrine of the Tides.

The same remark applies to some other Greek elements of scientific words: they are so familiar to us that in composition they are almost used as part of our own language. This naturalization has taken place very decidedly in the element _arch_, (ἀρχὸς a leader,) as we see in _archbishop_, _archduke_. It is effected in a great degree for the preposition _anti_: thus we speak of _anti-slavery_ societies, _anti-reformers_, _anti-bilious_, or _anti-acid_ medicines, without being conscious of any anomaly. The same is the case with the Latin preposition _præ_ or _pre_, as appears from such words as _pre-engage_, _pre-arrange_, _pre-judge_, _pre-paid_; and in some measure with _pro_, for in colloquial language we speak of _pro-catholics_ and _anti-catholics_. Also the preposition _ante_ is similarly used, as _ante-nicene_ fathers. The preposition _co_, abbreviated from _con_, and {331} implying things to be simultaneous or connected, is firmly established as part of the language, as we see in _coexist_, _coheir_, _coordinate_; hence I have called those lines _cotidal_ lines which pass through places where the high water of the tide occurs simultaneously.

2. As in the course of the mixture by which our language has been formed, we have thus lost all habitual consciousness of the difference of its ingredients, (Greek, Latin, Norman-French, and Anglo-Saxon): we have also ceased to confine to each ingredient the mode of grammatical inflexion which originally belonged to it. Thus the termination _ive_ belongs peculiarly to Latin adjectives, yet we say _sportive_, _talkative_. In like manner, _able_ is added to words which are not Latin, as _eatable_, _drinkable_, _pitiable_, _enviable_. Also the termination _al_ and _ical_ are used with various roots, as _loyal_, _royal_, _farcical_, _whimsical_; hence we may make the adjective _tidal_ from _tide_. This ending, _al_, is also added to abstract terms in _ion_, as _occasional_, _provisional_, _intentional_, _national_; hence we may, if necessary, use such words as _educational_, _terminational_. The ending _ic_ appears to be suited to proper names, as _Pindaric_, _Socratic_, _Platonic_; hence it may be used when scientific words are derived from proper names, as _Voltaic_ or _Galvanic_ electricity: to which I have proposed to add _Franklinic_.

In adopting scientific adjectives from the Latin, we have not much room for hesitation; for, in such cases, the habits of derivation from that language into our own are very constant; _ivus_ becomes _ive_, as _decursive_; _inus_ becomes _ine_, as in _ferine_; _atus_ becomes _ate_, as _hastate_; and _us_ often becomes _ous_, as _rufous_; _aris_ becomes _ary_, as _axillary_; _ens_ becomes _ent_, as _ringent_. And in adopting into our language, as scientific terms, words which in another language, the French for instance, have a Latin origin familiar to us, we cannot do better than form them as if they were derived directly from the Latin. Hence the French adjectives _cétacé_, _crustacé_, _testacé_, may become either _cetaceous_, _crustaceous_, _testaceous_, according to the analogy of _farinaceous_, _predaceous_, or else _cetacean_, _crustacean_, {332} _testacean_, imitating the form of _patrician_. Since, as I shall soon have to notice, we require substantives as well as adjectives from these words, we must, at least for that use, take the forms last suggested.

In pursuance of the same remark, _rongeur_ becomes _rodent_; and _edenté_ would become _edentate_, but that this word is rejected on another account: the adjectives _bimane_ and _quadrumane_ are _bimanous_ and _quadrumanous_.

3. There is not much difficulty in thus forming adjectives: but the purposes of Natural History require that we should have substantives corresponding to these adjectives; and these cannot be obtained without some extension of the analogies of our language. We cannot in general use adjectives or participles as singular substantives. _The happy_ or _the doomed_ would, according to good English usage, signify those who are happy and those who are doomed in the plural. Hence we could not speak of a particular scaled animal as _the squamate_, and still less could we call any such animal _a squamate_, or speak of _squamates_ in the plural. Some of the forms of our adjectives, however, do admit of this substantive use. Thus we talk of _Europeans_, _plebeians_, _republicans_; of _divines_ and _masculines_; of the _ultramontanes_; of _mordants_ and _brilliants_; of _abstergents_ and _emollients_; of _mercenaries_ and _tributaries_; of _animals_, _mammals_, and _officials_; of _dissuasives_ and _motives_. We cannot generally use in this way adjectives in _ous_, nor in _ate_ (though _reprobates_ is an exception), nor English participles, nor adjectives in which there is no termination imitating the Latin, as _happy_, _good_. Hence, if we have, for purposes of science, to convert adjectives into substantives, we ought to follow the form of examples like these, in which it has already appeared in fact, that such usage, though an innovation at first, may ultimately become a received part of the language.

By attention to this rule we may judge what expressions to select in cases where substantives are needed. I will take as an example the division of the mammalian animals into Orders. These Orders, {333} according to Cuvier, are _Bimanes_, _Quadrumanes_, _Carnassiers_, _Rongeurs_, _Edentés_, _Ruminants_, _Pachydermes_, _Cétacés_; and of these, _Bimanes_, _Quadrumanes_, _Rodents_, _Ruminants_, _Pachyderms_ are admissible as English substantives on the grounds just stated. _Cetaceous_ could not be used substantively; but _Cetacean_ in such a usage is sufficiently countenanced by such cases as we have mentioned, _patrician_, &c.; hence we adopt this form. We have no English word equivalent to the French _Carnassiers_: the English translator of Cuvier has not provided English words for his technical terms; but has formed a Latin word, _Carnaria_, to represent the French terms. From this we might readily form _Carnaries_; but it appears much better to take the Linnæan name _Feræ_ as our root, from which we may take _Ferine_, substantive as well as adjective; and hence we call this order _Ferines_. The word for which it is most difficult to provide a proper representation is _Edenté_, _Edentata_: for, as we have said, it would be very harsh to speak of the order as the _Edentates_; and if we were to abbreviate the word into _edent_, we should suggest a false analogy with _rodent_, for as _rodent_ is _quod rodit_, that which gnaws, _edent_ would be _quod edit_, that which eats. And even if we were to take _edent_ as a substantive, we could hardly use it as an adjective: we should still have to say, for example, the _edentate_ form of head. For these reasons it appears best to alter the form of the word, and to call the Order the _Edentals_, which is quite allowable, both as adjective and substantive.

[An objection might be made to this term, both in its Latin, French and English form: namely, that the natural group to which it is applied includes many species, both existing and extinct, well provided with teeth. Thus the armadillo is remarkable for the number of its teeth; the megatherium, for their complex structure. But the analogy of scientific language readily permits us to fix, upon the word _edentata_, a special meaning, implying the absence of one particular kind of teeth, namely, incisive teeth. Linnæus called the equivalent order _Bruta_. We could not {334} apply in this case the term _Brutes_; for common language has already attached to the word a wider meaning, too fixedly for scientific use to trifle with it.]

There are several other words in _ate_ about which there is the same difficulty in providing substantive forms. Are we to speak of _Vertebrates_? or would it not be better, in agreement with what has been said above, to call these _Vertebrals_, and the opposite class _Invertebrals_?

There are similar difficulties with regard to the names of subordinate portions of zoological classification; thus the Ferines are divided by Cuvier into _Cheiroptéres_, _Insectivores_, _Carnivores_; and these latter into _Plantigrades_, _Digitigrades_, _Amphibies_, _Marsupiaux_. There is not any great harshness in naturalizing these substantives as _Chiropters_, _Insectivores_, _Carnivores_, _Plantigrades_, _Digitigrades_, _Amphibians_, and _Marsupials_. These words _Carnivores_ and _Insectivores_ are better, because of more familiar origin, than Greek terms; otherwise we might, if necessary, speak of _Zoophagans_ and _Entomophagans_.

It is only with certain familiar adjectival terminations, as _ous_ and _ate_, that there is a difficulty in using the word as substantive. When this can be avoided, we readily accept the new word, as _Pachyderms_, and in like manner _Mollusks_.

If we examine the names of the Orders of Birds, we find that they are in Latin, _Predatores_ or _Accipitres_, _Passeres_, _Scansores_, _Rasores_ or _Gallinæ_, _Grallatores_, _Palmipedes_ and _Anseres_: Cuvier's Orders are, _Oiseaux de Proie_, _Passereaux_, _Grimpeurs_, _Gallinacés_, _Échassiers_, _Palmipedes_. These may be englished conveniently as _Predators_, _Passerines_, _Scansors_, _Gallinaceans_, (rather than _Rasors_,) _Grallators_, _Palmipedans_, [or rather _Palmipeds_, like _Bipeds_]. _Scansors_, _Grallators_, and _Rasors_, are better, as technical terms, than _Climbers_, _Waders,_ and _Scratchers_. We might venture to anglicize the terminations of the names which Cuvier gives to the divisions of these Orders: thus the Predators are the _Diurnals_ and the _Nocturnals_; the Passerines are the _Dentirostres_, the _Fissirostres_, the {335} _Conirostres_, the _Tenuirostres_, and the _Syndactyls_: the word _lustre_ showing that the former termination is allowable. The Scansors are not sub-divided, nor are the Gallinaceans. The Grallators are _Pressirostres_, _Cultrirostres_, _Macrodactyls_. The Palmipeds are the _Plungers_, the _Longipens_, the _Totipalmes_ and the _Lamellirostres_.

The next class of Vertebrals is the _Reptiles_, and these are either _Chelonians_, _Saurians_, _Ophidians_, or _Batrachians_. Cuvier writes _Batraciens_, but we prefer the spelling to which the Greek word directs us.

The last or lowest class is the _Fishes_, in which province Cuvier has himself been the great systematist, and has therefore had to devise many new terms. Many of these are of Greek or Latin origin, and can be anglicized by the analogies already pointed out, as _Chondropterygians_, _Malacopterygians_, _Lophobranchs_, _Plectognaths_, _Gymnodonts_, _Scleroderms_. _Discoboles_ and _Apodes_ may be English as well as French. There are other cases in which the author has formed the names of Families, either by forming a word in _ides_ from the name of a genus, as _Gadoides_, _Gobiöides_, or by gallicizing the Latin name of the genus, as _Salmones_ from _Salmo_, _Clupes_ from _Clupea_, _Ésoces_ from _Esox_, _Cyprins_ from _Cyprinus_. In these cases Agassiz's favourite form of names for families of fishes has led English writers to use the words _Gadoids_, _Gobioids_, _Salmonoids_, _Clupeoids_, _Lucioids_ (for _Ésoces_), _Cyprinoids_, &c. There is a taint of hybridism in this termination, but it is attended with this advantage, that it has begun to be characteristic of the nomenclature of family groups in the class _Pisces_. One of the orders of fishes, co-ordinate with the Chondropterygians and the Lophobranchs, is termed _Osseux_ by Cuvier. It appears hardly worth while to invent a substantive word for this, when _Bony Fishes_ is so simple a phrase, and may readily be understood as a technical name of a systematic order.

The Mollusks are the next Class; and these are divided into _Cephallopods_, _Gasteropods_, and the like. The Gasteropods are _Nudibranchs_, _Inferobranchs_, {336} _Tectibranchs,_ _Pectinibranchs_, _Scutibranchs_, and _Cyclobranchs_. In framing most of these terms Cuvier has made hybrids by a combination of a Latin word with _branchiæ_ which is the Greek name for the gills of a fish; and has thus avoided loading the memory with words of an origin not obvious to most naturalists, as terms derived from the Greek would have been. Another division of the Gasteropods is _Pulmonés_, which we must make _Pulmonians_. In like manner the subdivisions of the Pectinibranchs are the _Trochoidans_ and _Buccinoidans_, (_Trochoïdes_, _Buccinoïdes)_. The _Acéphales_, another order of Mollusks, may be _Acephals_ in English.

After these comes the third grand division, _Articulated Animals_, and these are _Annelidans_, _Crustaceans,_ _Arachnidans_, and _Insects_. I shall not dwell upon the names of these, as the form of English words which is to be selected must be sufficiently obvious from the preceding examples.

Finally, we have the fourth grand division of animals, the _Rayonnés_, or _Radiata_; which, for reasons already given, we may call _Radials_, or _Radiaries_. These are _Echinoderms_, _Intestinals_, (or rather _Entozoans_,) _Acalephes_, and _Polyps_. The Polyps, which are composite animals in which many gelatinous individuals are connected so as to have a common life, have, in many cases, a more solid framework belonging to the common part of the animal. This framework, of which coral is a special example, is termed in French _Polypier_; the word has been anglicized by the word _polypary_, after the analogy of _aviary_ and _apiary_. Thus Polyps are either _Polyps with Polyparies_ or _Naked Polyps_.

Any common kind of Polyps has usually in the English language been called _Polypus_, the Greek termination being retained. This termination in _us_, however, whether Latin or Greek, is to be excluded from the English as much as possible, on account of the embarrassment which it occasions in the formation of the plural. For if we say _Polypi_ the word ceases to be English, while _Polypuses_ is harsh: and there is the additional inconvenience, that both these forms would indicate the plural of individuals rather than of classes. {337} If we were to say, 'The Corallines are a Family of the _Polypuses with Polyparies_,' it would not at once occur to the reader that the last three words formed a technical phrase.