430 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 



A paper by the Rev. J. Reade, " On the Chemical Composition of Vegetable 

 Membrane and Fibre," was read by the Secretary. The author stated that his 

 attention was directed to this topic by Professor Henslow's observations in his 

 work on Botany, that the chemical composition of the membrane and fibre of 

 plants was very difficult to be obtained. Having noticed the success with which 

 his friend Mr. Rigg, of Walworth, analysed vegetable substances, he requested 

 him to undertake this subject, and he had obtained the following results. 

 Spiral vessels from a Hyacinth yielded — 



Carbon 41.8 



Hydrogen 1.1 



Nitrogen ,... 4.3 



Water 51.8 



Residuary matter 1.0 



100.0 



Cellular tissue : — 



Carbon „ 39.2 



Oxygen 7.4 



Nitrogen « 3.9 



Water 48.5 



Residue 1.0 



100.0 



An analysis of different parts of the flower-stalk of the Hyacinth gave the 

 following results : — 



C. H. O. N. W. Res. 



Epidermis and stomates 41.7 — 2.0 4.0 50.8 1.5 100 



Cellular tissue beneath epidermis 41.8 — 2.1 4.1 50.5 1.5 100 



Woody fibre under bark 39.2 0.5 — 5.7 55.6 1.0 100 



Spiral vessels , 35.8 1.7 — 3.9 58.1 0.5 100 



In these experiments the existence of nitrogen to so great an extent was 

 pointed out as remarkable. The author also thought they tended to prove that 

 vegetable fibre was not a form of membrane, as generally supposed. 



Professor Henslow observed that, in his work, he had alluded to the great 

 difficulty of isolating entirely either fibre or membrane. The cells of the cellular 

 tissue must contain some fluid matter in their interior, besides the fibre that lined 

 them externally. Mr. Rigg had experimented on spiral vessels which contained 

 both membrane and fibre ; therefore, the ultimate composition of membrane and 

 fibre were still a desideratum. 



Professor Lindley remarked that in a subject of this kind it was necessary 

 that the facts should be properly understood. He was not at all satisfied with 

 the conclusions of the paper. In the first place, he feared the author was not 

 well acquainted with the structure of plants, for he had mentioned that the 



