Jump to content

Line (unit)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theline(abbreviatedLorlororlin.) was a smallEnglish unitoflength,variously reckoned as110,112,116,or140of aninch.It was not included among the units authorized as the BritishImperial systemin 1824.

Size

[edit]

The line was not recognized by any statute of theEnglish Parliamentbut was usually understood as14of abarleycorn,[1](which itself was recognized by statute as13of aninch[2]) making it112of an inch, and1144of a foot. The line was eventuallydecimalizedas110of an inch, without recourse to barleycorns.[5]

The USbuttontrade uses the same ora similarterm but defined as one-fortieth of theUS-customaryinch (making a button-maker's line equal to 0.635 mm).[6][7]

In use

[edit]

Botanistsformerly used the units (usually as112inch) to measure the size ofplantparts. Linnaeus'sPhilosophia botanica(1751) includes the Linea in its summary of units of measurements, defining it as"Linea una Mensurae parisinae";Stearns gives its length as 2.25 mm. Even aftermetrication,British botanists continued to employ tools with gradations marked aslinea(lines); the British line is approximately 2.1 mm and theParis lineapproximately 2.3 mm.[8]

Entomologistsin the UK and other European countries in the 1800s used lines as a unit of measurement for insects, at least for the relatively largemantidsandphasmids.Examples include Westwood,[9][10]in the UK, and de Haan[11]in the Netherlands.

Gunsmithsand armament companies also employed the110-inch line (the "decimal line" ), in part owing to the importance of theGermanandRussianarms industries.[12]These are now given in terms ofmillimeters,but the seemingly arbitrary7.62 mm caliberwas originally understood as a 3-line caliber (as with the 1891Mosin–Nagantrifle). The 12.7 mm caliber used by theM2 Browning machine gunwas similarly a 5-line caliber.[12]

Foreign units

[edit]

Other similar small units called lines include:

  • TheRussianliniya(ли́ния),110of thediuymwhich had been set precisely equal to an EnglishinchbyPeter the Great[13]
  • TheFrenchligneor "Paris line",112of the French inch (French:pouce), 2.256 mm and about 1.06 L.
  • ThePortugueselinha,112of the Portuguese inch or 12 "points" (pontos) or 2.29mm
  • TheGermanliniewas usually112of the German inch but sometimes also110German inch
  • The Vienna line,112of a Vienna inch.[14][15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^"Barleycorn".Oxford Dictionary of English(3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.a former unit of measurement (about a third of an inch) based on the length of a grain of barley
  2. ^Fowler, W. (1884)."On the ancient terms applicable to the measurement of land".Transactions.Vol. XVI. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. p. 277.
  3. ^Jefferson (1790).
  4. ^Niles (1814),p. 22.
  5. ^Jefferson,[3]republished byNiles.[4]
  6. ^"An Easy Guide to Button Measurement and Sizing".Sun Mei Button Enterprise Co., Ltd. 19 June 2019.
  7. ^The Metric System | Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Manufactures, United States Senate, Sixty-seventh Congress, First and Second Sessions on S. 2267 a Bill to Fix the Metric System of Weights and Measures as the Single Standard of Weights and Measures for Certain Uses.By United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Manufactures. 11 October 1921. p. 216.
  8. ^Stearn, W.T. (1992).Botanical Latin: History, grammar, syntax, terminology, and vocabulary(Fourth ed.). David and Charles.
  9. ^Westwood, J.O. (1859).Catalogue of the Orthopterous Insects in the Collection of British Museum. Part I: Phasmidae.British Museum, London.
  10. ^Westwood, J.O. (1889).Revisio Insectorum Familiae Mantidarum, speciebus novis aut minus cognitis descriptis et delineatis. – Revisio Mantidarum.Gurney & Jackson, London.
  11. ^Haan, W.de (1842).Bijdragen tot de Kennis Orthoptera. in C.J. Temminck, Verhandelingen over de natuurlijke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche overzeesche Bezittingen. volume 2.
  12. ^abHogg (1991).
  13. ^Cardarelli (2004),pp. 121–124.
  14. ^ Albert Johannsen. "Manual of petrographic methods". p. 623.
  15. ^ Karl Wilhelm Naegeli; Simon Schwendener. "The Microscope in Theory and Practice". p. 294.

Bibliography

[edit]