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. Prichard57,) of repent and progressive animals, than of creeping and progressive: the two Latin terms make a better pair of correlatives.

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.

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 conductibility or conducibility with regard to heat. The bodies are conductive, and their property is conductivity.

(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 Economy, Geodesy, penal, Cesar. Hence, according to common usage, we should write phenomena, not phænomena, paleontology, not palæontology, miocene not miocæne, pekilite not 339 pœkilite. 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 Aristides; and hence this has been the usual form in English. Some recent authors indeed (Mr. Mitford for instance) write Aristeides; but the former appears to be the more legitimate. Hence we write miocene, pliocene, not meiocene, pleiocene. The Greek υ becomes y, and ου becomes u, in English as in Latin, as crystal, colure. The consonants κ and χ become c and ch according to common usage. Hence we write crystal, not chrystal, batrachian, not batracian, cryolite, not chryolite. 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, poikilite has been used, as well as pecilite. Even in common language some authors write skeptic, which appears to be better than sceptic 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 cathion; 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 sulphurous and sulphuric acids; sulphates, sulphites, and sulphurets. Since the introduction of the artifice by the Lavoisierian school, it has been extended to some new cases. The Chlorine, Fluorine, Bromine, Iodine, 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 Platinum, Molybdenum, than Platina, Molybdena. It has been proposed to term the basis of Boracic acid Boron; and those who conceive that the basis of Silica has an analogy with Boron have proposed to term it Silicon, while those who look upon it as a metal would name it Silicium. Selenium 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 Selen, as it is in German. Phosphorus in like manner might be Phosphur, which would indicate its analogy with Sulphur.

The resource which terminations offer has been applied in other cases. The names of many species of minerals end in lite, or ite, as Staurolite, Augite. 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 Zamites, from Zamia, Lycopodites from Lycopodium.

Names of different genera which differ in termination only are properly condemned by Linnæus58; 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.