Chapter XXVIII: Introduction (4)

This termination _us_ which must thus be excluded from the names of families, may be admitted in the designation of genera; of animals, as _Nautilus_, _Echinus_, _Hippopotamus_; and of plants, as _Crocus_, _Asparagus_, _Narcissus_, _Acanthus_, _Ranunculus_, _Fungus_. The same form occurs in other technical words, as _Fucus_, _Mucus_, _Œsophagus_, _Hydrocephalus_, _Callus_, _Calculus_, _Uterus_, _Fœtus_, _Radius_, _Focus_, _Apparatus_. It is, however, advisable to retain this form only in cases where it is already firmly established in the language; for a more genuine English form is preferable. Hence we say, with Mr. Lyell, _Ichthyosaur_, _Plesiosaur_, _Pterodactyl_. In like manner Mr. Owen anglicizes the termination _erium_, and speaks of the _Anoplothere_ and _Paleothere_.

Since the wants of science thus demand adjectives which can be used also as substantive names of classes, this consideration may sometimes serve to determine our selection of new terms. Thus Mr. Lyell's names for the subdivisions of the tertiary strata, _Miocene_, _Pliocene,_ can be used as substantives; but if such words as _Mioneous_, _Plioneous_, had suggested themselves, they must have been rejected, though of equivalent signification, as not fulfilling this condition.

4. (_a._) Abstract substantives can easily be formed from adjectives: from electric we have _electricity_; from galvanic, _galvanism_; from organic, _organization_; _velocity_, _levity_, _gravity_, are borrowed from Latin adjectives. _Caloric_ is familiarly used for the matter of heat, though the form of the word is not supported by any obvious analogy.

(_b._) It is intolerable to have words regularly formed, in opposition to the analogy which their meaning offers; as when bodies are said to have conduct_ibility_ or conduc_ibility_ with regard to heat. The bodies are conduct_ive_, and their property is conduct_ivity_.

(_c._) The terminations _ize_ (rather than _ise_), _ism_, and _ist_, are applied to words of all origins: thus we have to {338} _pulverize_, to _colonize_, _Witticism_, _Heathenism_, _Journalist_, _Tobacconist_. Hence we may make such words when they are wanted. As we cannot use _physician_ for a cultivator of physics, I have called him a _Physicist_. We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a _Scientist_. Thus we might say, that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist.

(_d._) Connected with verbs in _ize_, we have abstract nouns in _ization_, as _polarization_, _crystallization_. These it appears proper to spell in English with _z_ rather than _s_; governing our practice by the Greek verbal termination ίζω which we imitate. But we must observe that verbs and substantives in _yse_, (_analyse_), belong to a different analogy, giving an abstract noun in _ysis_ and an adjective _ytic_ or _ytical_; (_analysis_, _analytic_, _analytical_). Hence _electrolyse_ is more proper than _electrolyze_.

(_e._) The names of many sciences end in _ics_ after the analogy of _Mathematics_, _Metaphysics_; as _Optics_, _Mechanics_. But these, in most other languages, as in our own formerly, have the singular form _Optice_, _l'Optique_, _Optik_, _Optick_: and though we now write _Optics_, we make such words of the singular number: 'Newton's Opticks is an example.' As, however, this connexion in new words is startling, as when we say 'Thermo-electrics is now much cultivated,' it appears better to employ the singular form, after the analogy of _Logic_ and _Rhetoric_, when we have words to construct. Hence we may call the science of languages _Linguistic_, as it is called by the best German writers, for instance, William Von Humboldt.

5. In the derivation of English from Latin or Greek words, the changes of letters are to be governed by the rules which have generally prevailed in such cases. The Greek οι and αι, the Latin _oe_ and _ae_, are all converted into a simple _e_, as in _E_conomy, Geod_e_sy, p_e_nal, C_e_sar. Hence, according to common usage, we should write ph_e_nomena, not ph_æ_nomena, pal_e_ontology, not pal_æ_ontology, mioc_e_ne not mioc_æ_ne, p_e_kilite not {339} p_œ_kilite. But in order to keep more clearly in view the origin of our terms, it may be allowable to deviate from these rules of change, especially so long as the words are new and unfamiliar. Dr. Buckland speaks of the _poikilitic_, not _pecilitic_, group of strata: _palæontology_ is the spelling commonly adopted; and in imitation of this I have written _palætiology_. The diphthong ει was by the Latins changed into _i_, as in Arist_i_des; and hence this has been the usual form in English. Some recent authors indeed (Mr. Mitford for instance) write Arist_eid_es; but the former appears to be the more legitimate. Hence we write m_i_ocene, pl_i_ocene, not m_ei_ocene, pl_ei_ocene. The Greek υ becomes _y_, and ου becomes _u_, in English as in Latin, as cr_y_stal, col_u_re. The consonants κ and χ become _c_ and _ch_ according to common usage. Hence we write _crystal_, not _chrystal_, batra_ch_ian, not batra_c_ian, _c_ryolite, not _ch_ryolite. As, however, the letter _c_ before _e_ and _i_ differs from _k_, which is the sound we assign to the Greek κ, it may be allowable to use _k_ in order to avoid this confusion. Thus, as we have seen, poi_k_ilite has been used, as well as pe_c_ilite. Even in common language some authors write s_k_eptic, which appears to be better than s_c_eptic with our pronunciation, and is preferred by Dr. Johnson. For the same reason, namely, to avoid confusion in the pronunciation, and also, in order to keep in view the connexion with _cathode_, the elements of an electrolyte which go to the anode and cathode respectively may be termed the anion and cat_h_ion; although the Greek would suggest catïon, (κατίον).

6. The example of chemistry has shown that we have in the terminations of words a resource of which great use may be made in indicating the relations of certain classes of objects: as sulphur_ous_ and sulphur_ic_ acids; sulph_ates_, sulph_ites_, and sulph_urets_. Since the introduction of the artifice by the Lavoisierian school, it has been extended to some new cases. The Chlor_ine_, Fluor_ine_, Brom_ine_, Iod_ine_, had their names put into that shape in consequence of their supposed analogy: and for the same reason have been termed Chlore, {340} Phlore, Brome, Iode, by French chemists. In like manner, the names of metals in their Latin form have been made to end in _um_, as Osmium, Palladium; and hence it is better to say Platin_um_, Molybden_um_, than Platin_a_, Molybden_a_. It has been proposed to term the basis of Boracic acid Bor_on_; and those who conceive that the basis of Silica has an analogy with Boron have proposed to term it Silic_on_, while those who look upon it as a metal would name it Silic_ium_. Seleni_um_ was so named when it was supposed to be a metal: as its analogies are now acknowledged to be of another kind, it would be desirable, if the change were not too startling, to term it Sel_en_, as it is in German. Phosph_orus_ in like manner might be Phosph_ur_, which would indicate its analogy with Sulph_ur_.

The resource which terminations offer has been applied in other cases. The names of many species of minerals end in _lite_, or _ite_, as Stauro_lite_, Aug_ite_. Hence Adolphe Brongniart, in order to form a name for a genus of fossil plants, has given this termination to the name of the recent genus which they nearly resemble, as Zam_ites_, from Zamia, Lycopod_ites_ from Lycopodium.

Names of different genera which differ in termination only are properly condemned by Linnæus[58\4]; as _Alsine_, _Alsinoides_, _Alsinella_, _Alsinastrum_; for there is no definite relation marked by those terminations. Linnæus gives to such genera distinct names, _Alsine_, _Bufonia_, _Sagina_, _Elatine_.

[Note 58\4: _Phil. Bot._ 231.]

Terminations are well adapted to express definite systematic relations, such as those of chemistry, but they must be employed with a due regard to all the bearings of the system. Davy proposed to denote the combinations of other substances with chlorine by peculiar terminations; using _ane_ for the smallest proportion of Chlorine, and _anea_ for the larger, as Cupr_ane_, Cupr_anea_. In this nomenclature, common salt would be _Sodane_, and Chloride of Nitrogen would be _Azotane_. This suggestion never found favour. It was {341} objected that it was contrary to the Linnæan precept, that a specific name must not be united to a generic termination. But this was not putting the matter exactly on its right ground; for the rules of nomenclature of natural history do not apply to chemistry; and the Linnæan rule might with equal propriety have been adduced as a condemnation of such terms as Sulphur_ous_, Sulphur_ic_. But Davy's terms were bad; for it does not appear that Chlorine enters, as Oxygen does, into so large a portion of chemical compounds, that its relations afford a key to their nature, and may properly be made an element in their names.

This resource, of terminations, has been abused, wherever it has been used wantonly, or without a definite significance in the variety. This is the case in M. Beudant's Mineralogy. Among the names which he has given to new species, we find the following (besides many in _ite_), Scolexer_ose_, Opsim_ose_, Exanthel_ose_, &c.; Diacr_ase_, Panab_ase_, Neopl_ase_; Neocl_ese_; Rhodo_ise_, Stibicon_ise_, &c.; Marcel_ine_, Wilhelm_ine_, &c.; Exit_ele_, and many others. In addition to other objections which might be made to these names, their variety is a material defect: for to make this variety depend on caprice alone, as in those cases it does, is to throw away a resource of which chemical nomenclature may teach us the value.

APHORISM XXII.

_When alterations in technical terms become necessary, it is desirable that the new term should contain in its form some memorial of the old one._

WE have excellent examples of the advantageous use of this maxim in Linnæus's reform of botanical nomenclature. His innovations were very extensive, but they were still moderated as much as possible, and connected in many ways with the names of plants then in use. He has himself given several rules of nomenclature, which tend to establish this connexion of the {342} old and new in a reform. Thus he says, 'Generic names which are current, and are not accompanied with harm to botany, should be tolerated[59\4].' 'A passable generic name is not to be changed for another, though more apt[60\4]'. 'New generic names are not to be framed so long as passable synonyms are at hand[61\4].' 'A generic name of one genus, except it be superfluous, is not to be transferred to another genus, though it suit the other better[62\4].' 'If a received genus requires to be divided into several, the name which before included the whole, shall be applied to the most common and familiar kind[63\4].' And though he rejects all _generic_ names which have not a Greek or Latin root[64\4], he is willing to make an exception in favour of those which from their form might be supposed to have such a root, though they are really borrowed from other languages, as _Thea_, which is the Greek for goddess; _Coffea_, which might seem to come from a Greek word denoting silence (κωφός); _Cheiranthus_, which appears to mean hand-flower, but is really derived from the Arabic _Keiri_: and many others.

[Note 59\4: _Philosophia Botanica_, Art. 242.]

[Note 60\4: Art. 246.]

[Note 61\4: Art. 247.]

[Note 62\4: Art. 249.]

[Note 63\4: Art. 249.]

[Note 64\4: Art. 232.]

As we have already said, the attempt at a reformation of the nomenclature of Mineralogy made by Professor Mohs will probably not produce any permanent effect, on this account amongst others, that it has not been conducted in this temperate mode; the innovations bear too large a proportion to the whole of the names, and contain too little to remind us of the known appellations. Yet in some respects Professor Mohs has acted upon this maxim. Thus he has called one of his classes _Spar_, because _Felspar_ belongs to it. I shall venture to offer a few suggestions on this subject of Mineralogical Nomenclature.

It has already been remarked that the confusion and complexity which prevail in this subject render a reform very desirable. But it will be seen, from the reasons assigned under the Ninth Aphorism, that no permanent system of names can be looked for, till a {343} sound system of classification be established. The best mineralogical systems recently published, however, appear to converge to a common point; and certain classes have been formed which have both a natural-historical and a chemical significance. These Classes, according to Naumann, whose arrangement appears the best, are Hydrolytes, Haloids, Silicides, Oxides of Metals, Metals, Sulphurides (Pyrites, Glances, and Blendes), and Anthracides. Now we find;--that the Hydrolytes are all compounds, such as are commonly termed _Salts_;--that the Haloids are, many of them, already called _Spars_, as _Calc Spar_, _Heavy Spar_, _Iron Spar_, _Zinc Spar_;--that the _Silicides_, the most numerous and difficult class, are denoted for the most part, by single words, many of which end in _ite_;--that the other classes, or subclasses, _Oxides_, _Pyrites_, _Glances_, and _Blendes_, have commonly been so termed; as _Red Iron Oxide_, _Iron Pyrites_, _Zinc Blende_;--while pure metals have usually had the adjective _native_ prefixed, as _Native Gold_, _Native Copper_. These obvious features of the current names appear to afford us a basis for a systematic nomenclature. The Salts and Spars might all have the word _salt_ or _spar_ included in their name, as _Natron Salt_, _Glauber Salt_, _Mock Salt_; _Calc Spar_, _Bitter Spar_, (Carbonate of Lime and Magnesia), _Fluor Spar_, _Phosphor Spar_ (Phosphate of Lime), _Heavy Spar_, _Celestine Spar_ (Sulphate of Strontian), _Chromic Lead Spar_ (Chromate of Lead); the _Silicides_ might all have the name constructed so as to be a single word ending in _ite_, as _Chabasite_ (Chabasie), _Natrolite_ (Mesotype), _Sommite_ (Nepheline), _Pistacite_ (Epidote); from this rule might be excepted the _Gems_, as _Topaz_, _Emerald_, _Corundum_, which might retain their old names. The Oxides, Pyrites, Glances, and Blendes, might be so termed; thus we should have _Tungstic Iron Oxide_ (usually called Tungstate of Iron), _Arsenical Iron Pyrites_ (Mispickel), _Tetrahedral Copper Glance_ (Fahlerz), _Quicksilver Blende_ (Cinnabar), and the metals might be termed _native_, as _Native Copper_, _Native Silver_.

Such a nomenclature would take in a very large {344} proportion of commonly received appellations, especially if we were to select among the synonyms, as is proposed above in the case of _Glauber Salt_, _Bitter Spar_, _Sommite_, _Pistacite_, _Natrolite_. Hence it might be adopted without serious inconvenience. It would make the name convey information respecting the place of the mineral in the system; and by imposing this condition, would limit the extreme caprice, both as to origin and form, which has hitherto been indulged in imposing mineralogical names.

The principle of a mineralogical nomenclature determined by the place of the species in the system, has been recognized by Mr. Beudant as well as Mr. Mohs. The former writer has proposed that we should say _Carbonate Calcaire_, _Carbonate Witherite_, _Sulphate Couperose_, _Silicate Stilbite_, _Silicate Chabasie_, and so on. But these are names in which the part added for the sake of the system, is not incorporated with the common name, and would hardly make its way into common use.

We have already noticed Mr. Mohs's designations for two of the Systems of Crystallization, the _Pyramidal_ and the _Prismatic_, as not characteristic. If it were thought advisable to reform such a defect, this might be done by calling them the _Square Pyramidal_ and the _Oblong Prismatic_, which terms, while they expressed the real distinction of the systems, would be intelligible at once to those acquainted with the Mohsian terminology.

I will mention another suggestion respecting the introduction of an improvement in scientific language. The term _Depolarization_ was introduced, because it was believed that the effect of certain crystals, when polarized light was incident upon them in certain positions, was to destroy the peculiarity which polarization had produced. But it is now well known, that the effect of the second crystal in general is to divide the polarized ray of light into two rays, polarized in different planes. Still this effect is often spoken of as _Depolarization_, no better term having been yet devised. I have proposed and used the term _Dipolarization_, {345} which well expresses what takes place, and so nearly resembles the elder word, that it must sound familiar to those already acquainted with writings on this subject.

I may mention one term in another department of literature which it appears desirable to reform in the same manner. The theory of the Fine Arts, or the philosophy which speculates concerning what is beautiful in painting, sculpture or architecture, and other arts, often requires to be spoken of in a single word. Baumgarten and other German writers have termed this province of speculation _Æsthetics_; αἰσθάνεσθαι, _to perceive_, being a word which appeared to them fit to designate the perception of beauty in particular. Since, however, _æsthetics_ would naturally denote the Doctrine of Perception in general; since this Doctrine requires a name; since the term _æsthetics_ has actually been applied to it by other German writers (as Kant); and since the essential point in the philosophy now spoken of is that it attends to Beauty;--it appears desirable to change this name. In pursuance of the maxim now before us, I should propose the term _Callæsthetics_, or rather (in agreement with what was said in page 338) _Callæsthetic_, the science of the perception of beauty.

{{346}}
FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE APHORISMS
ON SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE, FROM THE
RECENT COURSE OF SCIENCES.

1. BOTANY.

THE nomenclature of Botany as rescued from confusion by Linnæus, has in modern times been in some danger of relapsing into disorder or becoming intolerably extensive, in consequence of the multiplication of genera by the separation of one old genus into several new ones, and the like subdivisions of the higher groups, as subclasses and classes. This inconvenience, and the origin of it, have been so well pointed out by Mr. G. Bentham[65\4], that I shall venture to adopt his judgment as an Aphorism, and give his reasons for it.

[Note 65\4: _Linnæan Society's Proceedings_, vol. ii. p. 30 (June, 1857).]

APHORISM XXIII.

_It is of the greatest importance that the Groups which give their substantive names to every included species should remain large._

IT will be recollected that according to the Linnæan nomenclature, the genus is marked by a substantive, (as _Rosa_), and the species designated by an adjective added to this substantive, (as _Rosa Alpina_); while the natural orders are described by adjectives taken substantively, (as _Rosaceæ_), But this rule, though it has been universally assented to in theory, has often been deviated from in practice. The number of known species having much increased, and the language of Linnæus and the principles of Jussieu having much augmented the facilities for the study of affinities, botanists have become aware that the species of a genus and the genera of an order can be collected into intermediate groups {347} as natural and as well defined as the genera and orders themselves, and names are required for these subordinate groups as much as for the genera and orders.

Now two courses have been followed in providing names for these subordinate groups.

1. The original genera (considering the case of genera in the first place) have been preserved, (if well founded); and the lower groups have been called _subgenera_, _sections_, _subsections_, _divisions_, &c.: and the original names of the genera have been maintained for the purpose of nomenclature, in order to retain a convenient and stable language. But when these subordinate groups are so well defined and so natural, that except for the convenience of language, they might be made good genera, there are given also to these subordinate groups, substantive or substantively-taken adjective names. When these subordinate groups are less defined or less natural, either no names at all are given, and they are distinguished by figures or signs such as *, **, or § 1, § 2, &c. or there are given them mere adjective names.

Or, 2, To regard these intermediate groups between species and the original genera, as so many independent genera; and to give them substantive names, to be used in ordinary botanical nomenclature.

Now the second course is that which has produced the intolerable multiplication of genera in modern times; and the first course is the only one which can save botanical nomenclature from replunging into the chaos in which Linnæus found it. It was strongly advocated by the elder De Candolle; although in the latter years of his life, seeing how general was the disposition to convert his subgenera and sections into genera, he himself more or less gave in to the general practice. The same principle was adopted by Endlichen, but he again was disposed to go far in giving substantive names to purely technical or ill-defined subsections of genera.

The multiplication of genera has been much too common. Botanists have a natural pride in establishing new genera (or orders); and besides this, it is felt how useful it is, in the study of affinities, to define and {348} name all natural groups in every grade, however numerous they may be: and in the immense variety of language it is found easy to coin names indefinitely.

But the arguments on the other side much preponderate. In attempting to introduce all these new names into ordinary botanical language, the memory is taxed beyond the capabilities of any mind, and the original and legitimate object of the Linnæan nomenclature is wholly lost sight of. In a purely scientific view it matters little if the Orders are converted into Classes or Alliances, the Genera into Orders, and the Sections or Subsections into Genera: their relative importance does not depend on the names given to them, but on their height in the scale of comprehensiveness. But for language, the great implement without which science cannot work, it is of the greatest importance, as our Aphorism declares, That the groups which give their substantive names to every species which they include, should remain large. If, independently of the inevitable increase of Genera by new discoveries, such old ones as _Ficus_, _Begonia_, _Arum_, _Erica_, &c. are divided into 10, 20, 30, or 40 independent Genera, with names and characters which are to be recollected before any one species can be spoken of;--if Genera are to be reckoned by tens of thousands instead of by thousands;--the range of any individual botanist will be limited to a small portion of the whole field of the sciences.

And in like manner with regard to Orders, so long as the number of Orders can be kept within, or not much beyond a couple of hundred, it may reasonably be expected that a botanist of ordinary capacity shall obtain a sufficient general idea of their nature and characters to call them at any time individually to his mind for the purpose of comparison: but if we double the number of Orders, all is confusion.

The inevitable confusion and the necessity of maintaining in some way the larger groups, have been perceived by those even who have gone the furthest in lowering the scale of Orders and Genera. As a remedy for this confusion, they propose to erect the old genera into independent orders, and the old orders into classes {349} or divisions. But this is but an incomplete resumption of the old principles, without the advantage of the old nomenclature.

And it will not be asserted, with regard to these new genera, formed by cutting up the old ones, that the new group is better defined than the group above it: on the contrary, it is frequently less so. It is not pretended that _Urostigma_ or _Phannacosyce_, new genera formed out of the old genus _Ficus_, are better defined than the genus _Ficus_: or that the new genera which have lately been cut out of the old genus _Begonia_, form more natural groups than _Begonia_ itself does. The principle which seems to be adopted in such subdivisions of old genera is this: that the lowest definable group above a species is a genus. If we were to go a step further, every species becomes a genus with a substantive name.

It ought always to be recollected that though the analytical process carried to the uttermost, and separating groups by observation of differences, is necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the facts upon which botany or any other classificatory science is based, it is a judicious synthesis alone, associating individuals by the ties of language, which can enable the human mind to take a comprehensive view of these facts, to deduce from them the principles of the science, or to communicate to others either facts or principles.

2. COMPARATIVE ANATOMY.

The Language of Botany, as framed by Linnæus, and regulated by his Canons, is still the most notable and successful example of scientific terminology which has obtained general reception among naturalists. But the Language of Anatomy, and especially of the Comparative Anatomy of the skeleton, has of late been an object of great attention to physiologists; and especially to Mr. Owen; and the collection of terms which he has proposed are selected with so much thought and care, that they may minister valuable lessons to us in this part of our subject.

There is, at first sight, this broad difference between the descriptive language of Botany and of Comparative {350} Anatomy; that in the former science, we have comparatively few parts to describe, (_calyx_, _corolla_, _stamen_, _pistil_, _pericarp_, _seed_, &c.): while each of these parts is susceptible of many forms, for describing which with precision many terms must be provided: in Comparative Anatomy, on the other hand, the skeletons of many animals are to be regarded as modifications of a common type, and the terms by which their parts are described are to mark this community of type. The terminology of Botany has for its object _description_; the language of Comparative Anatomy must have for its basis _morphology_. Accordingly, Mr. Owen's terms are selected so as to express the analogies, or, as he calls them, the _homologies_ of the skeleton; those parts of the skeleton being termed _homologues_, which have the same place in the general type, and therefore ought to have the same name.

Yet this distinction of the basis of botanical and anatomical terminology is not to be pushed too far. The primary definitions in botany, as given by Linnæus, are founded on morphological views; and imply a general type of the structure of plants. These are his definitions (_Phil. Bot._ Art. 86). CALYX, _Cortex_ plantæ in Fructificatione præsens. COROLLA, _Liber_ plantæ in Flora præsens. STAMEN, Viscus pro Pollinis præparatione. PISTILLUM, Viscus fructui adherens pro Pollinis receptione. PERICARPIUM, Viscus gravidum seminibus, quæ matura dimittit.

But in what follows these leading definitions, the terms are descriptive merely. Now in Comparative Anatomy, an important object of terms is, to express what part of the type each bone represents--to answer the question, _what_ is it? before we proceed, assuming that we know what it is, to describe its shape. The difficulty of this previous question is very great when we come to the bones of the head; and when we assume, as morphology leads us to do, that the heads of all vertebrated animals, including even fishes, are composed of homologous bones. And, as I have already {351} said in the History (b. xvii. c. 7), speaking of Animal Morphology, the best physiologists are now agreed that the heads of vertebrates may be resolved into a series of vertebræ, homologically repeated and modified in different animals. This doctrine has been gradually making its way among anatomists, through a great variety of views respecting details; and hence, with great discrepancies in the language by which it has been expressed. Mr. Owen has proposed a complete series of terms for the bones of the head of all vertebrates; and these names are supported by reasons which are full of interest and instruction to the physiologist, on account of the comprehensive and precise knowledge of comparative osteology which they involve; but they are also, as I have said, interesting and instructive to us, as exemplifying the reasons which may be given for the adoption of words in scientific language. The reasons thus given agree with several of the aphorisms which I have laid down, and may perhaps suggest a few others. Mr. Owen has done me the great honour to quote with approval some of these aphorisms. The terms which he has proposed belong, as I have already said, to the _Terminology_, not to the _Nomenclature_ of Zoology. In the latter subject, the Nomenclature (the names of species) the binary nomenclature established by Linnæus remains, in its principle, unshaken, simple and sufficient.

I shall best derive from Mr. Owen's labours and reflexions some of the instruction which they supply with reference to the Language of Science, by making remarks on his terminology with reference to such aphorisms as I have propounded on the subject, and others of a like kind.

Mr. Owen, in his _Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton_, has given in a Tabular Form his views of the homology of the bones of the head of vertebrates, and the names which he consequently proposes for each bone, with the synonyms as they occur in the writings of some of the most celebrated anatomical philosophers, Cuvier, Geoffroy, Hallmann, Meckel and Wagner, Agassiz and Soemmering. And he has added to this Table his reasons for dissenting from his predecessors {352} to the extent to which he has done so. He has done this, he says, only where nature seemed clearly to refuse her sanction to them; acting upon the maxim (our Aphorism X.) that new terms and changes of terms which are not needed in order to express truth, are to be avoided. The illustrations which I have there given, however, of this maxim, apply rather to the changes in nomenclature than in terminology; and though many considerations apply equally to these two subjects, there are some points in which the reasons differ in the two cases: especially in this point:--the names, both of genera and of species, in a system of nomenclature, may be derived from casual or arbitrary circumstances, as I have said in Aphorism XIII. But the terms of a scientific terminology ought to cohere as a system, and therefore should not commonly be derived from anything casual or arbitrary, but from some analogy or connexion. Hence it seems unadvisable to apply to bones terms derived from the names of persons, as _ossa wormiana_; or even from an accident in anatomical history, as _os innominatum_.

It is further desirable that in establishing such a terminology, each bone should be designated by a single word, and not by a descriptive phrase, consisting of substantive and adjective. On this ground Mr. Owen proposes _presphenoid_ for _sphenöide anterieur_. So also _prefrontal_ is preferred to _anterior frontal_, and _postfrontal_ to _posterior frontal_. And the reason which he gives for this is worthy of being stated as an Aphorism, among those which should regulate this subject. I shall therefore state it thus:

APHORISM XXIV.

_It is advisable to substitute definite single names for descriptive phrases as better instruments of thought._

IT will be recollected by the reader that in the case of the Linnæan reform of the botanical nomenclature of species, this was one of the great improvements which was introduced.

Again: some of the first of the terms which Mr. Owen proposes illustrate, and confirm by their manifest claim {353} to acceptance, a maxim which we stated as Aphorism XXII.: namely, When alterations in technical terms become necessary, it is desirable that the new term should contain in its form some memorial of the old one.

Thus for 'basilaire,' which Cuvier exclusively applies to the 'pars basilaris' of the occiput, and which Geoffroy as exclusively applies (in birds) to the 'pars basilaris' of the sphenoid, Mr. Owen substitutes the term _basioccipital_.

Again: for the term 'suroccipital' of Geoffroy, Mr. Owen proposes _paroccipital_, to avoid confusion and false suggestion: and with reference to this word, he makes a remark in agreement with what we have said in the discussion of Aphorism XXI.: namely, that the combination of different languages in the derivation of words, though to be avoided in general, is in some cases admissible. He says, 'If the purists who are distressed by such harmless hybrids as "mineralogy," "terminology," and "mammalogy," should protest against the combination of the Greek prefix to the Latin noun, I can only plead that servility to a particular source of the fluctuating sounds of vocal language is a matter of taste: and that it seems no unreasonable privilege to use such elements as the servants of thought; and in the interests of science to combine them, even though they come from different countries, when the required duty is best and most expeditiously performed by their combination.'

So again we have illustrations of our Aphorism XII., that if terms are systematically good they are not to be rejected because they are etymologically inaccurate. In reference to that bone of the skull which has commonly been called _vomer_, the ploughshare: a term which Geoffroy rejected, but which Mr. Owen retains, he says, 'When Geoffrey was induced to reject the term _vomer_ as being applicable only to the peculiar form of the bone in a small portion of the vertebrata, he appears not to have considered that the old term, in its wider application, would be used without reference to its primary allusion to the ploughshare, and that becoming, as it {354} has, a purely arbitrary term, it is superior and preferable to any partially descriptive one.'

Another condition which I have mentioned in Aphorism XX., as valuable in technical terms is, that they should be susceptible of such grammatical relations as their scientific use requires.

This is, in fact, one of the grounds of the Aphorism which we have already borrowed from Mr. Owen, that we are to prefer single substantives to descriptive phrases. For from such substantives we can derive adjectives, and other forms; and thus the term becomes, as Mr. Owen says, _a better instrument of thought_. Hence, he most consistently mentions it as a recommendation of his system of names, that by them the results of a long series of investigations into the special homologies of the bones of the head are expressed in simple and definite terms, _capable of every requisite inflection_ to express the proportion of the parts.

I may also, in reference to this same passage in Mr. Owen's appeal in behalf of his terminology, repeat what I have said under Aphorism X.: that the persons who may most properly propose new scientific terms, are those who have much new knowledge to communicate: so that the vehicle is commended to general reception by the value of what it contains. It is only to eminent discoverers and profound philosophers that the authority is conceded of introducing a new system of terms; just as it is only the highest authority in the state which has the power of putting a new coinage into circulation. The long series of investigations of which the results are contained in Mr. Owen's table of synonyms, and the philosophical spirit of his generalizations, entitles him to a most respectful hearing when he appeals to the Professors and Demonstrators of Human Anatomy for an unbiassed consideration of the advantages of the terms proposed by him, as likely to remedy the conflicting and unsettled synonymy which has hitherto pervaded the subject.

There is another remark which is suggested by the works on Comparative Anatomy, which I am now considering. I have said in various places that Technical {355} Terms are a necessary condition of the progress of a science. But we may say much more than this: and the remark is so important, that it deserves to be stated as one of our Aphorisms, as follows:

APHORISM XXV.

_In an advanced Science, the history of the Language of the Science is the history of the Science itself._

I HAVE already stated in previous Aphorisms (VIII. and XI.) that Terms must be constructed so as to be fitted to enunciate general propositions, and that Terms which imply theoretical views are admissible for this purpose. And hence it happens that the history of Terms in any science which has gone through several speculative stages, is really the history of the generalizations and theories which have had currency among the cultivators of the science.

This appears in Comparative Anatomy from what we have been saying. The recent progress of that science is involved in the rise and currency of the Terms which have been used by the anatomists whose synonyms Mr. Owen has to discuss; and the reasons for selecting among these, or inventing others, include those truths and generalizations which are the important recent steps of the science. The terms which are given by Mr. Owen in his table to denote the bones of the head are good terms, _if_ they _are_ good terms, because their adoption and use is the only complete way of expressing the truths of homology: namely, of that Special Homology, according to which all vertebrate skeletons are referred to the human skeleton as their type, and have their parts designated accordingly.

But further: there is another kind of homology which Mr. Owen calls _General_ Homology, according to which the primary type of a vertebrate animal is merely a series of vertebræ; and all limbs and other appendages are only developements of the parts of one or another of the vertebræ. And in order to express this view, and in proportion as the doctrine has become current amongst {356} anatomists, the parts of vertebræ have been described by terms of a degree of generality which admit of such an interpretation. And here, also, Mr. Owen has proposed a terminology for the parts of the vertebræ, which seems to convey more systematically and comprehensively than those of preceding writers the truths to which they have been tending. Each vertebra is composed of a _centrum_, _neurapophysis_, _parapophysis_, _pleurapophysis_, _hæmaphysis_, _neural spine_ and _hæmal spine_, with certain exogenous parts.

The opinion that the head, as well as the other parts of the frame of vertebrates, is composed of vertebræ, is now generally accepted among philosophical anatomists. In the _History_ (_Hist. I. S._ b. xvii. c. 7, sect. 1), I have mentioned this opinion as proposed by some writers; and I have stated that Oken, in 1807 published a 'Program' _On the signification of the bones of the Skull_, in which he maintained, that these bones are equivalent to four vertebræ: while Meckel, Spix, and Geoffroy took views somewhat different. Cuvier and Agassiz opposed this doctrine, but Mr. Owen has in his _Archetype and Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton_ (1848), accepted the views of Oken, and argued at length against the objections of Cuvier, and also those of Mr. Agassiz. As I have noted in the last edition of the _History of the Inductive Sciences_ (b. xvii. c. 7), he gives a Table in which the Bones of the Head are resolved into four vertebræ, which he terms the Occipital, Parietal, Frontal and Nasal Vertebræ respectively: the neural arches of which agree with what Oken called the Ear-vertebra, the Jaw-vertebra, the Eye-vertebra, and the Nose-vertebra.

Besides these doctrines of _Special Homology_ by which the bones of all vertebrates are referred to their corresponding bones in the human skeleton, and of _General Homology_, by which the bones are referred to the parts of vertebræ which they represent, Mr. Owen treats of _Serial Homology_, the recognition of the same elements throughout the series of segments of the same skeleton; as when we shew in what manner the arms correspond to the legs. And thus, he says, in the head also, the _basioccipital_, _basisphenoid_, _presphenoid_ and _vomer_ are {357} homotypes with the _centrums_ of all succeeding vertebræ. The _excoccipitals_,_ alisphenoids_, _orbitosphenoids_, and _prefrontals_, are homotypes with the _neurapophyses_ of all the succeeding vertebræ. The _paroccipitals_, _mactoids_ and _postfrontals_, with the _transverse processes_ of all the succeeding vertebræ: and so on. Perhaps these examples may exemplify sufficiently for the general reader both Mr. Owen's terminology, and the intimate manner in which it is connected with the widest generalizations to which anatomical philosophy has yet been led.

The same doctrine, that the history of the Language of a Science is the history of the Science, appears also in the recent progress of Chemistry; but we shall be better able to illustrate our Aphorism in this case by putting forward previously one or two other Aphorisms bearing upon the history of that Science.

APHORISM XXVI.

_In the Terminology of Science it may be necessary to employ letters, numbers, and algebraical symbols._

1. MINERALOGY.

I HAVE already said, in Aphorism XV., that symbols have been found requisite as a part of the terminology of Mineralogy. The _names_ proposed by Haüy, borrowed from the crystalline laws, were so inadequate and unsystematic that they could not be retained. He himself proposed a _notation_ for crystalline forms, founded upon his principle of the derivation of such forms from a _primitive_ form, by _decrements_, on its _edges_ or its _angles_. To denote this derivation he took the first letters of the three syllables to mark the faces of the _PriMiTive_ form, _P_, _M_, _T_; the vowels _A_, _E_, _I_, _O_ to mark the angles; the consonants _B_, _C_, _D_, &c. to mark the edges; and numerical exponents, annexed in various positions to these letters, represented the law and manner of derivation. Thus when the primitive form was a cube, 1 _B_ represented the result of a derivation by a decrement of one row {358} on an edge; that is, a rhombic octahedron; and 1 _BP_ represented the combination of this octahedron with the primitive cube. In this way the pentagonal dodecahedron, produced by decrements of 2 to 1 on half the edges of the cube, was represented by ½ _B_² _C G_² ²_G_.

Not only, however, was the hypothesis of primitive forms and decrements untenable, but this notation was too unsystematic to stand long. And when Weiss and Mohs established the distinction of Systems of Crystallography[66\4], they naturally founded upon that distinction a notation for crystalline forms. Mohs had several followers; but his algebraical notation so barbarously violated all algebraical meaning, that it was not likely to last. Thus, from a primitive rhombohedron which he designated by _R_, he derived, by a certain process, a series of other rhombohedrons, which he denoted by _R_ + 1, _R_ + 2, _R_ − 1, &c.; and then, by another mode of derivation from them, he obtained forms which he marked as (_R_ + 2)², (_R_ + 2)³, &c. In doing this he used the algebraical marks of addition and involution without the smallest ground; besides many other proposals no less transgressing mathematical analogy and simplicity.

[Note 66\4: _Hist. Ind. Sc._ b. xv. c. 4.]

But this notation might easily suggest a better. If we take a primitive form, we can generally, by two steps of derivation, each capable of numerical measure, obtain any possible face; and therefore any crystalline form bounded by such faces. Hence all that we need indicate in our crystalline laws is the primitive form, and two numerical exponents; and rejecting all superfluity in our symbols, instead of (_R_ + 2)³ we might write 2 _R_ 3. Nearly of this kind is the notation of Naumann. The systems of crystallization, the octahedral or tessular, the rhombic, and the prismatic, are marked by the letters _O_, _R_, _P_; and from these are derived, by certain laws, such symbols as 3 _O_ ½, ∞ _R_ 2, ½ _P_ 2, {359} which have their definite signification flowing from the rules of the notation.

But Professor Miller, who has treated the subject of Crystallography in the most general and symmetrical manner, adopts the plan of marking each crystalline plane by _three_ numerical indices. Thus in the Octahedral System, the cube is {100}; the octahedron is {111}; the rhombic dodecahedron is {011}; the pentagonal dodecahedron is π {012}; where π indicates that the form is not _holohedral_ but _hemihedral_, only half the number of faces being taken which the law of derivation would give. This system is the most mathematically consistent, and affords the best means of calculation, as Professor Miller has shown; but there appears to be in it this defect, that though an essential part of the scheme is the division of crystalline forms into Systems,--the Octahedral, Pyramidal, Rhombohedral and Prismatic,--this division does not at all appear in the notation.

But whatever be the notation which the crystallographer adopts, it is evident that he must employ some notation; and that, without it, he will be unable to express the forms and relations of forms with which he has to deal.

2. CHEMISTRY.

The same has long been the case in Chemistry. As I have stated elsewhere[67\4], the chemical nomenclature of the oxygen theory was for a time very useful and effective. But yet it had defects which could not be overlooked, as I have already stated under Aphorism II. The relations of elements were too numerous, and their numerical properties too important, to be expressed by terminations and other modifications of words. Thus the compounds of Nitrogen and Oxygen are the Protoxide, the Deutoxide, Nitrous Acid, Peroxide of Nitrogen, Nitric Acid. The systematic nomenclature here, even thus loosely extended, does not express our knowledge. And the Atomic Theory, when established, brought to view numerical {360} relations which it was very important to keep in sight. If _N_ represents Nitrogen and _O_ Oxygen, the compounds of the two elements just mentioned might be denoted by _N_ + _O_, _N_ + 2_O_, _N_ + 3_O_, _N_ + 4_O_, _N_ + 5_O_. And by adopting a letter for each of the elementary substances, all the combinations of them might be expressed in this manner.

[Note 67\4: _Hist. Ind. Sc._ b. xiv. c. 6.]

But in chemistry there are different orders of combination. A salt, for instance, is a compound of a base and an acid, each of which is already compound. If _Fe_ be iron and _C_ be carbon, _Fe_ + _O_ will be the protoxide of iron, and _C_ + 2_O_ will be carbonic acid; and the carbonate of iron (more properly carbonate of protoxide of iron), may be represented by (_Fe_ + _O_) + (_C_ + 2_O_) where the brackets indicate the first stage of composition.

But these brackets and signs of addition, in complex cases, would cumber the page in an inconvenient degree; and oxygen is of such very wide occurrence, that it seems desirable to abridge the notation so far as it is concerned. Hence Berzelius proposed[68\4] that in the first stage of composition the oxygen should be expressed by dots over the letter; and thus the carbonate of iron would be [.]_Fe_ + [..]_C_. But Berzelius further introduced into his notation indexes such as in algebra denote involution to the square, cube, &c. Thus _Cu_ being copper, the sulphate of copper is represented by [...]_S_²[..]_Cu_. This notation, when first proposed, was strongly condemned by English chemists, and Berzelius's reply to them may be taken as stating the reasons in favour of such notation. He says[69\4], 'We answer to the opponents, that undoubtedly the matter may be looked at in various lights. The use of Formulæ has always, for a person who has not accustomed himself to them, something repulsive; but this is easy to overcome. I agree with my opponent, {361} who says that nothing can be understood in a Formula which cannot be expressed in words; and that if the words express it as easily as the Formula, the use of the latter would be a folly. But there are cases in which this is not so; in which the Formula says in a glance what it would take many lines to express in words; and in which the expression of the Formula is clearer and more easily apprehended by the reader than the longer description in words. Let us examine such a Formula, and compare it with the equivalent description in words. Take, for example, crystallized sulphate of copper, of which the Formula is [..]_Cu_[...]_S_² + 10_H_²_O_. Now this Formula expresses the following propositions: 'That the salt consists of one atom of copper-oxide combined with 2 atoms of sulphuric acid and with 10 atoms of water; that the copper-oxide contains two atoms of oxygen; and that the sulphuric acid contains 3 atoms of oxygen for one atom of sulphur; that its oxygen is three times as much as that of the oxide; and that the number of atoms of oxygen in the acid is 6; and that the number of atoms of oxygen in the water is 10; that is, 5 times the number in the oxide; and that finally the salt contains, of simple atoms, 1 copper, 2 sulphur, 20 hydrogen, and 18 oxygen.

[Note 68\4: _System of Mineralogy_, 1816.]

[Note 69\4: _Jahresbericht_, 1824, p. 119.]

'Since so much is expressed in this brief Formula, how very long would the explanation be for a more composite body, for example, Alum; for which the Formula is [..]_K_[...]_S_² + 2[...]_Al_[...]_S_³ + 48_H_²_O_. It would take half a page to express all which this Formula contains.

'Perhaps it may be objected that it is seldom that any one wants to know all this at once. But it might reasonably be said in reply, that the peculiar value of the Formula consists in this, that it contains answers to all the questions which can be asked with regard to the composition of the body. {362}

'But these Formulæ have also another application, of which I have sometimes had occasion to make use. Experiments sometimes bring before us combinations which cannot be foreseen from the nomenclature, and for which it is not always easy to find a consistent and appropriate name. In writing, the Formula may be applied instead of a Name: and the reader understands it better than if one made a new name. In my treatise upon the sulphuretted alkalies I found Degrees of Sulphur-combination, for which Nomenclature has no name. I expressed them, for example, by _KS_^6, _KS_^8, _KS_^10 and I believed that every one understood what was thereby meant. Moreover, I found another class of bodies in which an electro-negative sulphuretted metal played the part of an Acid with respect to an electro-positive sulphuretted metal, for which a whole new nomenclature was needed; while yet it were not prudent to construct such a nomenclature, till more is known on the subject. Instead of new names I used formulas; for example, _KS_² + 2_As S_³, instead of saying the combination of 2 atoms of Sulphuret of Arsenic containing 3 atoms of Sulphur, with one atom of Sulphuret of Potassium (Kali) with the least dose of sulphur.'

Berzelius goes on to say that the English chemists had found themselves unable to find any substitutes for his formulæ when they translated his papers.

Our English chemists have not generally adopted the notation of oxygen by dots; but have employed commas or full stops and symbols (, or . and +), to denote various degrees of union, and numerical indices. Thus the double sulphate of copper and potash is _Cu O_, _SO__3 + _KO_, _SO__3.

What has been said is applicable mainly to inorganic bodies (as salts and minerals)[70\4]. In these bodies there is (at least according to the views of many intelligent chemists) a _binary_ plan of combination, union taking {363} place between _pairs_ of elements, and the compounds so produced again uniting themselves to other compound bodies in the same manner. Thus, in the above example, copper and oxygen combine into oxide of copper, potassium and oxygen into potash, sulphur and oxygen into sulphuric acid; sulphuric acid in its turn combines both with oxide of copper and oxide of potassium, generating a pair of salts which are capable of uniting to form the double compound _Cu O_, _SO__3 + _KO_, _SO__3.

[Note 70\4: Fownes's _Chemistry_. Part iii.]

The most complicated products of inorganic chemistry may be thus shown to be built up by this repeated _pairing_ on the part of their constituents. But with organic bodies the case is remarkably different; no such arrangement can here be traced. In sugar, which is _C__12 _H__11 _O__11, or morphia[71\4], which is _C__35 _H__20 _NO__6, the elements are as it were bound together into a single whole, which can enter into combination with other substances, and be thence discharged with properties unaltered; the elements not being obviously arranged in any subordinate groups. Hence the symbols for those substances are such as I have given above, no marks of combination being used.

[Note 71\4: Fownes's _Chemistry_, p. 354.]

It is perhaps a consequence of this peculiarity that organic compounds are _unstable_ in comparison with inorganic. In unorganic substances generally the elements are combined in such a way that the most powerful affinities are satisfied[72\4], and hence arises a state of very considerable permanence and durability. But in an organic substance containing three or four elements, there are often opposing affinities nearly balanced, and when one of these tendencies by some accident obtains a preponderance and the equilibrium is destroyed, then the organic body breaks up into two or more new bodies of simpler and more permanent constitution.

[Note 72\4: See _Hist. Ind. Sc._ b. xiv. c. 3.]