In 1850 the number of substances generally recognised as chemical elements, in the sense in which that term was first employed by Boyle, was sixty-two. Two members—viz., the _pelopium_ of Rose and the _ilmenium_ of Hermann—were, however, subsequently shown to be identical with metals already known. At the present time (1910) the number of the chemical elements definitely recognised as such is eighty-two. In 1850, as now, they were broadly classified as metals and non-metals, although it was felt then, no less strongly than now, that no very clear line of demarcation was traceable between the two groups. Sixty years ago the elements usually styled non-metals were thirteen in number; to-day the number is nineteen—the increase being due to the inclusion of arsenic and the discovery of the so-called inactive elements, helium, argon, krypton, neon, and xenon. In 1850 there were forty-seven elements definitely classed as metals; in 1910 the number is sixty-three. At all periods in the history of chemistry as a science the general tendency has been to name substances, whenever possible, in accordance with the theoretical conceptions of the time, and hence it has happened that the same body at successive periods has had very dissimilar names. But in naming the substances we term elements, theoretical conceptions are not usually applicable. Oxygen, it is true, derives its name from such a conception; and, etymologically, the name connotes an error. Hydrogen, too, has no more right to be called the _water former_ than oxygen. Davy, who invented the term chlorine, advocated that the chemical elements should be named from some distinguishing peculiarity, either of origin or of physical property. In the main this principle has been adopted especially in later years although there are numerous instances of names derived from pure arbitrary sources. It is largely for the reason that the names of the elements are, with rare exceptions, unconnected with theories that they have remained unchanged, whereas names of compounds, which are far more frequently dependent upon speculative ideas, have constantly been altered in order to comply with the prevailing hypotheses of the period. At the same time it is not always clear that the etymology of certain of the elements is well ascertained. It has been recently shown, for example that the commonly accepted origin of the word “antimony” from _antimoine_, based on the alleged experiences of mediæval ecclesiastics has no valid foundation. The word is, in reality, derived from the Arabic _alhmoud_: this became latinised to _althimodium_ and eventually to _antimonium_.