The Rev. B. Bronwin's Reply to Mr. Cayley's Remarks. 89 



In reference to the preceding table, the analogies of starch, 

 gum and sugar are sufficiently familiar, both in the artificial 

 processes, by which the former may be transformed into the 

 latter, and in the changes produced by vegetation. The con- 

 version of sugar and honey into wax by bees was long ago 

 shown by Huber, and has lately been brought forward with 

 happy effect by Liebig, in evidence of the part which the sac- 

 charine class of bodies performs in the respiratory ceconomy. 

 The intermediate position which fat holds between sugar and 

 wax would seem to point to it as a stage in the process of re- 

 duction. The analogy between wax and cholesterin is suffi- 

 ciently striking as products of reduction from an amylaceous 

 or saccharine base ; and this idea has been strengthened by 

 the circumstance of my having obtained from the latter bodies 

 bearing a close analogy to the turpentine and naphtha type, 

 while the opinion has gained support, which I entertain, that 

 cholesterin is the wax of mammiferous animals. The corre- 

 spondence of resins to these bodies is sufficiently apparent. 



XIV. Reply to Mr. Cayley's Remarks. By the Rev. Brice 



Bronwin*. 



A DESIRE to see the paper which I last transmitted to 

 this Journal printed before my reply to Mr. Cayley, has 

 occasioned this delay in noticing his remarks of the 13th of 

 April ult. (inserted in the Number for May, p. 358) on a for- 

 mer paper of mine. With respect to the second form of w, he 

 says, that I by no means show that Jacobi's formulae fail, but 

 rather confirm them. Now I did not say that they failed for 

 it, but only that they were reducible till it disappeared, and 

 that with it their second members were improper representa- 

 tions of the first. And if this be correct, which Mr. Cayley 

 does not deny, it is surely to be discarded from the theory. 

 For the other three forms, Mr. Cayley thinks that when 



u = co, -^ might be p H + pf H' V — 1, and s a v = ± 1, 0, 

 + oo \/_ i or + — • I presume he means — , not -^-. I 

 consider that the structure of the formulas implies that s a «, 

 c a rr do not exceed the limits + 1, and therefore reject 

 * Communicated by the Author. 



