Want of a systematic universal nomenclature in mineralogy

Abstract

I suppose that many, only on account of its curious title, will take no notice of the following paper, because the words, Nomenclature in Mineralogy, do not denote something real or abstract at all. Nevertheless, I venture to hope that, sooner or later, a systematical nomenclature will make its appearance, since it is a real want in the further progress of this science. Botany and zoology,—and also that part of geology, which is called palaeontology,—have, as it were, an international language. In English, or Russian, or German, or French, zoologists know at once what is meant by names such as Hyaena striata, Bos caffer, Passer capensis, c and the botanists of these and other countries cannot be in doubt about the meaning of the Latin words, Primula veris, Lamia alba, Gentiana alpina, &c., or the palaeontologist about such names as Ursus spelaeus, Terebratula elongata, Eozoon canadense. But how can a Hungarian mineralogist understand what an English mineralogist means by bog iron ore, or a French mineralogist by feroxyde massif argilifere? He cannot ascertain the true meaning of such words as orpiment, arsenic sulfure jaune, melaconite, chessylite, muriate of mercury, &c., and even should there exist a similarity between these and the corresponding Hungarian words, he can never be quite certain of understanding them correctly. The English and other mineralogists meet with the same inconvenience whenever they go to countries where their respective languages are not spoken. The same difficulty presents itself within the languages themselves. Take, for instance, the English,