however, very happily chosen, especially where new discriminations were to be established, or errors corrected, or even a redundant crop of synonymes to be superseded by a better name. _Epidote_ is an instance of the latter, and the new divisions of the old _zeolite family_ into four species, _mesotype_, _stilbite_, _analcime_, and _chabasie_, afford a happy instance of the former. It were much to be wished, that by the common consent of mineralogists, one nomenclature should be universally adopted: for its uniformity is of much more importance than its nature. In expressing our approbation of the principles of arrangement adopted by Professor Cleaveland, we have of course espoused those of his TABULAR VIEW, which is perhaps as nearly as the state of science will admit, erected upon a chemical basis, like that of Brongniart, to which it bears a close resemblance. Some of the subordinate parts, we could have wished had been arranged in a manner somewhat different. In the genus lime, it appears to us better to describe the species carbonat first; because, being very abundant, and its characters clear, it forms a convenient point of departure and standard of comparison, in describing the other species which have lime for their basis, and some of which are comparatively rare. The same remark we would make upon quartz, and its concomitant, pure silicious stones. There appears to us a high advantage in making these minerals clearly known first, before we proceed to those which are much more rare, and especially which are much harder, and possess the characters of gems. For example, if a learner has become acquainted with quartz, chalcedony, flint, opal, chrysoprase, and jasper, he will much more easily comprehend the superior hardness, &c. and different composition of topaz, sapphire, spinelleruby, chrysoberyl, and zircon, which we should much prefer to see occupying a later, than the first place in a tabular arrangement; and, although topaz, by containing fluoric acid, appears to be in some measure assimilated to saline minerals, it is in its characters so very diverse from the earthy salts, that we have fair reason to conclude that the fluoric acid does not stamp the character; and, as it bears so close a resemblance to the ruby and sapphire, which evidently derive their principal characters from the argillaceous earth, we perhaps ought to infer that this (the topaz,) does so too. Indeed Professor Cleaveland has sufficiently implied his own opinion, by giving these minerals a juxtaposition in his table, although the same reasons which induced the placing of the topaz next to the earthy salts, could not have justified the placing of the sapphire there. On these points we are not, however, strenuous; they are of more importance if the work be used as a text-book for lectures, than as a private companion. With respect to the _completeness_ of Professor Cleaveland's tabular view, we have carefully compared it with the third edition