Page:Color standards and color nomenclature (Ridgway, 1912).djvu/29

 and most of them vague and variable in their application. Most of them are invented, apparently without care or judgment, by the dyer or manufacturer of fabrics, and are as capricious in their meaning as in their origin; for example: Such fanciful names as "zulu," "serpent green," "baby blue," "new old rose," "London smoke," etc., and such nonsensical names as "ashes of roses" and "elephant's breath." An inspection of the sample books of manufacturers of fancy goods (such as embroidery silks and crewels, ribbons, velvets, and other dress- and upholstery-goods) is sufficient not only to illustrate the above observations, but to show also the absolute want of system or classification and the general unavailability of these trade names for adoption in a practical color nomenclature. This is very unfortunate, since many of these trade names have the merit of brevity and euphony and lack only the quality of stability

It has been difficult for the author to decide whether the standards of his original "Nomenclature of Colors" (1886) should be retained in the present work. Some of them are admittedly wrong (indeed, certain ones are not as they were intended to be); besides, owing to the method of reproducing the originals (hand stenciling; there is considerable variation in different copies of the book, one or more reprints, necessitating new mixtures of pigments, adding to this lack of uniformity. Many persons, however, have urged the retention of the old standards, on the ground that they have been used by so many zoologists and botanists in their writings during the last twenty-five years that they have become estab