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.