Constitution of the Alcohols. 93 



Cyanide of sethyle. Propionate of potash. 



i " . i ' i 



2(C 2 h 5 . C n) + k 2 + 3h 2 = k 2 . (C 2 h 5 ) r C 2 , O 3 + 2h 3 n. 

 Cyanide of amyle. Caproate of potash. 



2(C 5 h 11 .Cn)+k 2 + 3h 2 0=k 2 0.(C 5 h 11 ) r C 2 ,0 3 + 3h 3 n. 



Contrary to my expectation, the experiments I have made, 

 variously modified and conducted with the most scrupulous care, 

 show that the acid in question does not exist. The products of 

 decomposition of a mixture of cyanides of sethyle and amyle were 

 propionic and caproic acids alone; not the slightest trace of 

 any other acid could be discovered, although a considerable 

 quantity of the cyanides was used in the experiment. I think 

 myself justified in inferring from this negative result, that the 

 radical contained in propionic acid is not composed of two atoms 

 of sethyle, one of which may be substituted by other elementary 

 or compound atoms, but that it consists of one indivisible equi- 

 valent; and that therefore Williamson's theory of the alcohols 

 and sethers, if not disproved, certainly loses very much in pro- 

 bability, so much the more as it is very deficient in decisive facts 

 for its support. 



The formation of sether by distilling together iodide of sethyle 

 with kali-sethylat appears to me simply and quite satisfactorily 

 explained by assuming that two equivalents of sether are formed, 



C 4 H\K0 + C 4 H 5 .I = 2C 4 H 5 + KI. 



There is certainly no more difficulty here than in the following : 



KO . CI 5 + 6H C1 = K C1 + 6HO + 6C1. 

 We have no more reason to suppose that six separate equivalents 

 of chlorine are set free in the latter case, than that two equiva- 

 lents of aether are in the former. 



It may perhaps be objected, that a combination of two bodies 

 so similar in nature and constitution as methyle-oxide and 

 sethyle-oxide, by the mutual action of kali-sethylat and iodide of 

 methyle, is improbable : — 



(C 4 H 5 )0 . KO + (C 2 H 3 ) . I=(C 4 H 5 )0 . (C 2 H 3 )I + KI. 



But have we not perfectly analogous cases presented by inor- 

 ganic chemistry ? JEthyle-oxide and methyle-oxide are certainly 

 not more similar in their chemical character than chlorine and 

 iodine, which combine together, not merely in one, but in several 

 proportions. And does not the theory of double salts (as, for 



