Abstract
QUESTIONS of nomenclature are of some importance, and of some difficulty, in subjects not thoroughly investigated. M. Antoine d'Abbadie's last letter (NATURE, January 10, p. 247) is so interesting, and, from the linguistic and bibliographical points of view, so exhaustive, that it is with reluctance that I point out why my opinion slightly differs from his on nomenclature, having already indicated a difference of opinion as to the physical nature of the phenomenon itself. I gave, as a matter of course as well as of courtesy, the title of “Alpine Haze” to my last communication, out of deference to Prof. Tyndall, and shall continue to do so until I know Prof. Tyndall's final opinion, but deference to the highest authority cannot alter my belief that this title is not a fortunate one—a belief confirmed by Antoine d'Abbadie's own evidence. Ludolf's definition is good, but what I required was a simple English term for the use of non-scientific observers, and of some careful scientific observers like Dr. Barder. “Dry haze” (together with the specific term, of which it is the translation) begs a more serious question than is begged by “dust haze.”
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
LEY, W. Alpine Haze. Nature 39, 270 (1889). https://doi.org/10.1038/039270c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/039270c0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.