There is one more topic connected with this part of the subject upon which we would remark, viz. the _nomenclature of phrenology_. We cannot better introduce what we have to say, than by quoting the language of Dr. Whately, published in the second number of this Journal, page 47. “I am convinced that, even if all connection of the brain with the mind were regarded not merely as doubtful, but as a perfect chimera, still the treatises of many phrenological writers, especially yours,” (Mr. Combe’s,) “would be of great value, from their employing a metaphysical nomenclature far more accurate, logical, and convenient, than Locke, Stewart, and other writers of their schools.” Higher authority on this subject than Dr. Whately could not be cited. But the testimony of many persons of high authority might be quoted. Even the opponents of phrenology will express their admiration of its classification and nomenclature; and that, too, while they profess entire unbelief in the truth of the system, not reflecting that this excellency is an important argument in favour of its truth. Simplicity and clearness are only attributes of _truth_; and the principle is without exception, that of two systems, that which is most simple and clear is most accordant with truth. Such ever has, and ever will be, the verdict of mankind. Without claiming perfection for phrenology in regard to _classification_ and _nomenclature_, we think its advantages in this respect to mental science will be incalculable. Every writer on metaphysics usually tills some scores of pages on the importance of being precise in the use of language, and the danger of employing terms in a loose and careless manner; and no one who looks at the history of metaphysical science will consider such cautions as unnecessary. One half or three fourths of the controversies which have taken place in reference to the philosophy of the mind, have doubtless arisen from a misunderstanding of _terms_. This is true not only in regard to subjects purely metaphysical, but many controversial treatises on religious doctrines would never have been inflicted on the world, had the parties understood each other. We do not claim for a knowledge of phrenology the quality of a sovereign universal remedy for those evils. There are many subjects of controversy not directly connected with the science; and difference of opinion as often arises from difference of feeling as from difference in intellectual apprehension. Even phrenologists, equally well versed in the principles of their science, will sometimes have different views. But with them, controversies and discussions do not arise from a misunderstanding of language. Although there is still _terra incognita_ within the limits of the system, and many indefinite points, some of which probably never will be settled in our mortal state, yet the harmony of phrenologists on the science of the mind is scarcely surpassed by that of other philosophers