5* Notices respecting New Books, 



merely for want of room, for we have still a few observations to make 

 with regard to some other metallic compounds. 



Copper, according to Dr. Fyfe, is not an abundant production, and yet 

 the county of Cornwall alone produces nearly ten thousand tons annu- 

 ally. Sulphate of copper according to our author is " always " procured 

 by exposing the natural ore containing sulphur and copper to the air. 

 We venture to assert that this salt is never now so prepared, nor do we 

 believe that it ever was. Is Dr. Fyfe aware of the fact, that with few 

 exceptions, the ore of copper is a double sulphuret of that metal and 

 iron ? And if a salt were formed from it by the action of air and mois- 

 ture, it would undoubtedly be the double sulphate of copper and iron, 

 which is a well known compound. 



Dr. Fyfe has, we think, entirely mistaken the nature of the pulvis 

 antimonialis. He says that "the oxide of antimony and phosphate of 

 lime enter into union and form a triple phosphate of antimony and 

 lime." Now it appears to us that there is not the slightest evidence 

 of combination existing between the oxide and the phosphate j indeed 

 of all substances in nature, phosphate of lime, from its extreme inertness, 

 is one of the least likely to combine with a metallic oxide. Nor can we 

 assent to the assertion that pulvis antimonialis is one of the best of 

 the antimonial preparations : on the contrary, there is the strongest 

 evidence to prove that it is generally inert ; and when it possesses 

 power, it is impossible to determine the degree of its activity by any 

 ordinary means. 



Dr. Fyfe is not more careful in representing the opinions of others 

 than in detailing his own j thus he says, << according to Phillips (Ann. 

 of Phil. N. S. iv.),when properly manufactured it(pulvis antimonialis) 

 should be composed of phosphate of lime and protoxide -, whereas it 

 frequently contains the peroxide, and therefore differing from James's 

 Powder, which from the analysis of Pearson and Phillips is com- 

 posed of 



Phosphate of lime .43 



Protoxide of antimony 57. 



He has found, also, that instead of the oxide and the phosphate being 

 in combination, they are frequently merely mixed, and must therefore 

 be totally inert as a medicine." 



Now as we readily acquit Dr. Fyfe of all intentional misrepresenta- 

 tion, we have no alternative but to suppose that he never read the 

 paper to which he above alludes, and from which he appears to quote. 

 On referring to Dr. Pearson's analysis, it will be observed that not a 

 word is stated with respect to the state of the oxidizement of the an- 

 timony j and for a very sufficient reason — nothing at that time, (more 

 than thirty years since,) was known on the subject -, and Phillips is 

 so far from attributing the inertness of pulvis antimonialis to the ingre- 

 dients being merely mixed and not combined, that he considers them 

 always mixed and never combined j and he distinctly mentions that he 

 found the antimony in James's Powder to be peroxide, not protoxide 

 as asserted by Dr. Fyfe. 



It is quite needless to add more instances of Dr. Fyfe's want of 



precision 



