2o8 Proceedinqs Columhia Biochemical Association [March, 



" break " shows how little Bunting knew about the disturbing influence on bis 

 test of ferric chlorid itself. He evidently failed to compare bis results with 

 those of control tests. 



Bunting was asked by Gies (p. 858) : " Does diacetic acid affect the new pro- 

 cedure ; if so, is the disturbing effect more or less than that on the first process — 

 possibly any contained diacetate would be decomposed by the preliminary desicca- 

 tion ? " To these questions Bunting replied irrelevantly as follows (p. 866) : " He 

 (Gies) then asks how the alcohol-ether method eliminates{!) the aceto-acetic 

 acid, if present. Is it possible that he (Gies) does not know that the ferric salt 

 of aceto-acetic acid is not soluble in ether ? " Bunting's äff ected surprise in this 

 regard would be less amusing if he had f rankly answered the questions ; and 

 his chemical ignorance would be less apparent if he had addressed himself to 

 the possible influence, on his test, of diacetic acid (in saliva) through the ca- 

 pacity of diacetic acid to affect the concentration of " soluble iron " in the final 

 medium ; to which, of course, Gies' question directly referred, 



Bunting's inability, or unwillingness, to State correctly the simplest facts of 

 the case were shown by his misuse of various remarks in his conclusion to the 

 " discussion." Thus, Dr. Percy R. Howe, who participated in the discussion, 

 said (p. 863) : " I have tried the test many times and in my hands the color is 

 much deeper by Bunting's ether method (the first, rej ected by Bunting) than 

 by the FeCU plus H2O." There is no indication in this remark, or in any other 

 that Howe made, of any determination by him of the coloric influence of excess 

 of ferric chlorid itself in the alcohol-ether test — no Suggestion of any comparison 

 of the two tests at dilutions of sulfocyanate that might have been expected to 

 develop the comparative values of the tests, yet Bunting says complacently and 

 incorrectly of this remark (p. 867) : " Dr. Howe told us that he had tried the 

 method and had found it trustworthy(.')" On page 867 Bunting states, in an- 

 other connection : " Dr. Gies has given no evidence of having made an actual 

 test of the validity of this Statement, but has contented himself with saying that 

 it is not true." Yet the " evidence " was orally stated and appears on p. 857 — 

 printer's proof of which was submitted to Bunting prior to the publication of his 

 own Statement. (If the compliment has been returned by him, Bunting's over- 

 sight in this connection would have been pointed out before it was too late for 

 correction.) Again, Bunting presumed to state, inhis printed rej oinder, that Gies 

 "says that dentists should not attempt problems which involve chemistry" (p. 

 867), and then worked up a ludicrous frenzy about "such a sentiment." Gies 

 suggested, on the contrary, that " it is time for you (dentists) to eye with 

 suspicion the expert dentist who persists in taking your time, and using space 

 in your Journals, to discuss chemical research of douhtful validity and of 

 dubious comprehension. Let us stick to our lasts " (p. 861). There was no 

 Suggestion that dentists qualified to conduct chemical research should not do so. 



During the discussion, Gies said : " I publicly stated, recently, to some of 

 your colleagues at a dental meeting in New York that I have taken the war- 

 path against your pseudo-chemists, and was told, in reply, that I might never 

 perform a better service for dentistry." In his printed rejoinder to this, Bunt- 

 ing suggested that, should Gies continue in this direction, "he (Gies) will kill 

 himself by his own misdirected efforts " (p. 868). Bunting is right — the more 

 the senior author prepares himself for the execution of this purpose, especially 



