108 ANNUAL OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY. 



who believes that the discovery of cyanogen did not suggest doubts to the 

 minds of chemists, and to Gay Lussac himself, on the nature of chlorine." 



" Is not the same the case with ammonium and the radicals of the ethers? 

 Do not these radicals furnish oxides, chlorides, sulphurets? Do not these 

 oxides, acting the part of bases, resemble potussa and soda so strongly as 

 even to mislead? Have we not in the combination of these radicals the 

 same system as in inorganic chemistry? Who is the chemist to whom these 

 discoveries, succeeding one upon another, have not suggested doubts con- 

 cerning the nature of metals?" 



" In a word, the efforts of modern chemists, for forty years, have resulted 

 in proving that organic chemistry is made up of substances which are sub- 

 ject to the very same laws with which Lavoisier enchained inorganic chem- 

 istry, and subordinated to the same scheme through all its products. It was 

 Lavoisier, who, in tracing out the route for us to follow, more than seventy 

 3'ears ago, defined organic chemistry as the chemistry of compound radicals, 

 and mineral chemistry the chemistry of undecomposable radicals." 



Dumas then refuted, one after another, the facts brought forward by Des- 

 pretz in proof of his views. "If M. Despretz thinks that by distilling mer- 

 cury, zinc, or cadmium, these substances can be decomposed, he forgets 

 that alchemists and the arts long ago threw light on this point. If he com- 

 pounds with the decomposition of a single body the analyses of a mixture, 

 I regret it, but I remain convinced that there is not the slightest connection 

 between the successive separations and the decomposition of simple bodies; 

 that there is nothing in common between those fortunate concentrations to 

 which we owe the discovery of iodine, cadmium, selenium, and bromine, and 

 a philosophical discussion concerning the principle of the unit}- of mat- 

 ter." Dumas further sums up with the following conclusions : 1. It appears 

 to me more and more probable that the equivalents of simple bodies are 

 multiples of the same unit. 2. That the radicals of mineral chemistry be- 

 have in the same way as the radicals of organic chemistry. 3. That it is 

 impossible to prove that bodies reputed simple are undecomposable. 4. 

 That if, even at the present time, simply by employing forces and means 

 already known, it is easy to contrive processes more powerful than those 

 which M. Despretz has employed for the purpose of accomplishing this 

 decomposition, I regard it as my duty to affirm anew that, in my opinion, 

 these processes, though more rational, will not probably be more effectual. 

 Silliman's Journal, Nos. 81 and 8:2 Correspondence of M. Nickks. 



UNITARY NOTATION IN CHEMISTEY. 



The so-called system of " Unitary Notation " in Chemistry, which is 

 adopted and taught at the present time by the younger school of chemists 

 in Great Britain, viz., Dr. Gelling, of Guy's Hospital, Prof. Brodie, of 

 Oxford, Prof. Williamson, of the University of London, and others, con- 

 sists mainly in doubling the atomic weights of ten of the elementary bodies, 

 viz., oxygen, sulphur, selenium, tellium, carbon, boron, silicon, tantalum, 

 titanium, and tin. Those who arc acquainted with Chemistry, will sec at a 

 glance the enormous number of compounds which ai'e thus affected. Water, 

 which under the old system was regarded as a compound of one of hydro- 

 gen and one of oxygen, is now regarded as having two of hydrogen and one 

 of oxygen. Its atomic number is 18, instead of 9. Nitric acid, whose for- 

 mula is written NOoHO, is to be NOsH. The theory of the constitution of 



