quently be ascertained by mechanical division (44). It was there remarked, that it is known from observation, that, in a large number of species of minerals, each species has integrant particles of a form peculiar to itself (50). But it must be distinctly noticed, that, in some instances, different species do certainly possess integrant particles of precisely the same form and relative dimensions, although differing in other properties.

'It may, however, undoubtedly be assumed as a universal principle, that every species of minerals has integrant particles, whose true composition is peculiar to that species. In other words, no two really distinct species of minerals can be found, whose integrant particles exhibit the same form and agree in their composition; for, if their forms be the same, their composition and many of their physical properties will differ.

'It hence appears, that an integrant particle in the mineral kingdom corresponds to an individual among animals, or vegetables. As each plant, abstracted from its individual qualities, is a representative of all the plants, belonging to the same species, and of the species itself, so an integrant particle represents the species, to which it belongs. The integrant particles of the same species possess the same composition, the same form and other physical properties; and an aggregate of these particles, whether it be crystallized or amorphous, would exhibit the mineral in a pure state, and possessing all the essential properties, which belong to that species.

'We therefore conclude, that, in cases, where the results of chymical analysis are not satisfactory, the form and some other physical properties, which are essential to the integrant particles, may furnish us with specific characters, on which very great reliance may be placed in determining that composition, which characterizes the species. Indeed the history of the Arragonite justifies us in saying, that such irreconcilable differences of structure and other important properties may exist between two minerals, whose composition, in the present state of analysis, appears to be the same, as to render it proper to suspend a decision in regard to such minerals.

"The preceding view of the nature, or properties of the integrant particle does not, perhaps, differ from that, given by the Abbe Hauy in his Treatise on Mineralogy. But although he admits, that it belongs to chymical analysis to establish the basis of arrangement, yet, in determining the species, he appears to be governed chiefly by the form of the integrant particles, except in those cases, where different species have integrant particles of the same form. Hence he defines a species, a collection of bodies, whose integrant particles are alike, and composed of the same principles, united in the same porportions. The latter clause of the definition he adds for the purpose of including those cases, in which integrant particles of different species have the same form.'

To this system of Hauy, Professor Cleaveland objects, that, The form of the integrant particle is indeed dependent on the true composition of the mineral, and is unquestionably, in many instances, a very important character to indicate what is essential to that composition. But the acknowledged fact, that some species, really distinct, have integrant particles of precisely the same form, proves that the character, derived from the form of the integrant particle, being less general, ought to be subordinate in the true composition. It is hence obvious, that the form of the integrant particles can never be adopted, as a universal standard, for establishing the species among minerals.

'Further, it is by no means evident, that certain minerals, which have never been seen crystallized, do not constitute really distinct species, and are in fact only a mixture of several species. We have remarked, that every species has integrant particles, whose composition, and very frequently, whose form and some other physical properties, are peculiar to that species, and would, if well understood, distinguish it from every other species. But, would not the integrant particles of a mineral remain the same in their real nature, whether regularly arranged in a crystal, or collected into an amorphous mass? In order that minerals may crystallize, they. must be placed in certain circumstances, favourable to this process. Now we find some minerals have crystallized much less frequently than others. And where is the inconsistency in supposing, that some species of minerals seldom or never crystallize? do not indeed know all the circumstances, under which minerals were placed at the time of their formation; but is it not perfectly consistent to believe, that the presence of certain earths, not essential to the species, may, by their counteracting affinities, prevent crystallization! This we know to be sometimes the case in mixtures of certain salts. It is true, the number of supposed species, which has never been seen crystallized, is indeed small. But, if they are really distinct species, their claims to that rank ought to be asserted, although they have never been permitted to delight our eyes by their regularity of form.'

We

After this he proceeds to the principles which he has adopted for his own arrangement in the present work; acknowledging genera, orders, classes, species, subspecies, varieties, and subvarieties.

'It may be useful here to recapitulate the principles, we have endeavoured to establish for a scientific arrangement of minerals, and to make some additional remarks on the subject.

1. The true composition of minerals is the only sure criterion for determining the species, and when known, should be employed in all cases.

2. When the composition of minerals is entirely unknown, or but imperfectly understood, other characters, depending more or less on the composition, must be employed. Of these the more

important are undoubtedly derived from the crystalline form and structure; the latter of which may be extended to foliated masses, not possessed of a regular form; for these often easily yield to mechanical division. Indeed a careful attention to crystalline characters may sometimes remove apparent difficulties in the results of analysis.'

3. The form of the integrant particle may often be employed with great advantage; but this alone cannot be relied upon with certainty, because the same form is sometimes common to different species; and hence, if two minerals are found to have integrant particles of the same form, the other properties of these minerals, examined in a state of purity, must agree, in order to establish the identity of the two substances.'

4. When minerals, whose ingredients are capable of combining in various proportions, are crystallized, the form of the integrant particle may be of great use in limiting the species.'

5. The form of the integrant particle, and the primitive form of crystals may be employed with advantage to distinguish what ingredients, found in a mineral, are unessential to the species; for whatever can be added to a mineral, or taken from it, without affecting these forms, may be considered foreign or not essential. The siliceous carbonate of lime (calcareous sandstone of Fontainbleau) affords a striking instance of a mineral greatly contaminated by a foreign substance, without affecting the form of the integrant particle.'

'6. When analysis is wanting, much benefit may be obtained from the primitive forms of crystals in establishing the species; for it is worthy of notice, that, when two or more crystals, belonging to different species, have the same primitive form, their other physical characters are, in general, strikingly different; as in the case of spinelle and magnetic oxide of iron. Indeed the primitive form may, in many instances, be employed instead of that of the integrant particles.'

7. The structure and actual forms of secondary crystals are also important, provided the various angles of the crystal be accurately measured.'

8. When all assistance from analysis or the crystalline form is denied, the species must be determined by a well chosen aggregate of those external characters, such as structure, fracture, hardness, &c. which depend most intimately on the nature of the mineral. It is however to be understood, that in all cases, where the composition is unknown, the species are to be considered provisional, till the progress of chymistry shall enable us to re-examine them.'

The number of species, whose composition is not well known, even if it were greater than it is, ought not to be offered as an objection to the principles, we have just stated, for establishing the species. An objection of this kind would be saying, that, because we

have not sufficient light on every object, it should be rejected in cases, where it shines with the greatest clearness. Neither can any difficulty or confusion arise from adopting a method somewhat mixed, depending in different parts on different principles. For so far, as the method is mixed, it arises from an imperfect knowledge of the true composition of certain minerals; and there is reason to believe, that the provisional species will gradually disappear, either by becoming well established, or by being associated with other species.'

The preceding principles, it is believed, will enable us to limit and determine every species of simple minerals with as much accuracy, as the present state of our knowledge will permit.'

On the nomenclature and synonime of minerals, the author makes those remarks which every mineralogist is driven to make. It forms, indeed, an obstacle of no common magnitude to the acquirement of mineralogical knowledge; and how the evil is to be remedied by the daily addition of new designations to ancient substances, we know not. It appears to us, that Hauy and his followers have much to answer for on this ground:-they have burthened us with hard names from the Greek Lexicons of Stephens, Hederic, or Schrevelius, which have no affinity whatever to the substances they are meant to designate. To us, this eternal resort to the Greek language-this untimely submission to Horace's rule si Græco fonte cadant-appears an attempt to exclude the mass of the people from useful knowledge, by needlessly complicating it with useless learning: it is like denying the cup to the laity: it reminds us of the pedantry of poets and painters, who take it for granted that aman of sense has nothing to do, but to burthen his memory with school-boy recollections of heathen mythology. It inscribes on the porch of mineralogy, procul,o! procul, este profani. The uncouth names of Werner and his disciples; his rock-cork, his rock-milk, his rock-butter, or even goensikoethiges silver; is better than the eurites, the psamenites, the phullades, the telesies, the amphiboles, the pyroxenes, the amphigenes, the zyloides, &c. of the French school.

Perhaps it is yet too early to institute a characteristic nomenclature, until we have fixed the system on which the characters shall be founded. But when we have a name tolerably characteristic, as the Fish-eye stone for instance,-why need we the apophyllite and the icthyopthalmite into the bargain? Werner has named the scapolite; how much is added to our knowledge when Hauy calls this paranthine, or when some other mineralogist in a complimentary humour, calls it white Wernerite? Is not axe-stone as good as axinite or thummerstone? But pages might be filled with similar observations on similar instances. We are aware of the objection, that the learned should have some common language to supply their nomenclature; but when names are really descriptive, they can easily be translated from one modern into another modern language. No difficulty oc

curs to a chymist, because what the English call muriat of Soda, the French call muriate de Soude. We wish all useful knowledge to be extended; to be made common; and when a man is earnest in search of the knowledge of things, we greatly object o any system, which shall deter him, by rendering necessary the mere knowledge of words. What is called learning, is very useful; but it ought not to be made absolutely necessary to science; which, as the fashion now is, we lock up in a chest, and appoint a greek professor to keep the key.

But it is time to proceed with the work before us. Professor Cleaveland, from page 87 to page 101, gives us a tabular view of minerals, under the arrangement and nomenclature he has adopted; which is better and more useful than the mineralogical tables generally published in works of this description, from the marginal notices of the substances which enter into the general composition of the minerals so classed. His arrangement is, upon the whole, as good as, if not better than, any precedent one. If we were to make any exception, it should be the chymical classification of Dr. Clarke, of Cambridge, in England.

In his descriptions of particular minerals, our author gives us the usual external characters; part of the crystalline characters; the chymical characters when they have been ascertained; their geognostic and geographic situations and localities; with notices of those places within the United States where the respective minerals are to be found. In this respect, he has resorted to, and has been assisted by, able men among us; and it gives his book a decided character of interest, as being more peculiarly the mineralogy of the United States. This circumstance alone, were there no other, would recommend it strongly to American mineralogists. But it has still other recommendations:-it is a laborious, and, upon the whole, a judicious compilation from the best of the foreign mineralogists,-Hauy, Brongniart, and Jameson; and it will go near to supersede the necessity of purchasing the editions he uses of the authors referred to.

We have already remarked that Professor Cleaveland has given his readers part of the crystalline characters. In the preface, p. vii. he observes,―

But as the limits assigned to this volume would not permit a particular notice of all the secondary forms of crystals, I have endeavoured to give those general views of the primitive form and structure of the crystals under each species, which may enable the student to refer the various secondary forms to their proper nucleus. In addition to this, the most common secondary forms, and sometimes those which are most rare, or most complex in their structure, are particularly described, and often explained by the assistance of diagrams. It is extremely important to possess correct general ideas of the form and structure of the perfect