Prof. Williamson's Othyle Theory. 419 



investigation* "Upon the Atomic Weight and the Constitution 

 of the Alcohols " the subject of his criticism. Prof. Williamson 

 writes : — " In the August Number of the Philosophical Magazine 

 I observe a paper by Dr. Wrightson, describing the action of 

 an alcoholic solution of potash-hydrate upon a mixture of the 

 cyanides of sethyle and amyle, and employing the result of that 

 experiment as an argument against the othyle theory ; " he goes 

 on to show the inadmissibility of such a deduction, derived from 

 the above-named experiments, as adverse to the othyle theory. 

 Now will Professor Williamson do me the favour to indicate 

 where I have used the result of the above experiments as an 

 argument against the othyle theory ? I have never drawn any 

 conclusion whatever as to the othyle theory from the results I 

 obtained. My investigation, as its title implies, was directed to 

 prove or disprove the hypothetical substitution of certain alcohol 

 and aether radicals; and Professor Williamson might certainly 

 have abstained from so gratuitously forcing his othyle hypothesis 

 upon me to assist in the verification of his alcohol theory, con- 

 sidering my very decided objection thereto, expressed at the out- 

 set before alluding to my experiments, in the following words 

 (Phil. Mag. August Number, p. 91) : — 



" To show, however, the relation of the othyle theory to the 

 before-named important facts, and convey the conviction that it 

 is no longer fairly tenable," &c. 



The experiments of Kolbe and Frankland, of Dumas, &c. 

 upon the facile transformation of the cyanides into the acids, and 

 vice versa, the transformation of the ammonia salts of the acids 

 into the cyanides ; the decomposition of valerianic and acetic 

 acids by the galvanic stream, were the grounds upon which I 

 rejected the othyle hypothesis, and based my experiments upon 

 the generally accepted formula for this class of acids, 



C n H n+1 ?C 2 3 , 



commencing at formic acid and ascending to capric acid or 

 beyond. I must therefore decidedly object to Professor William- 

 son's mode of argument complaining of my unreasonableness 

 in desiring two sether radicals in the quasi acids, while his othyle 

 theory denied the existence of one. Certainly, upon the othyle 

 hypothesis or ' assumption/ no intermediate acids could exist be- 

 tween those already known, and therefore, I repeat, I was careful 

 to show at the outset I could not proceed upon such an as- 

 sumption. 



But according to the view I took, which considers acetic acid 

 as containing one equivalent or two atoms of methyle, we had 



* Phil. Mag. August 1853. 



