ElvISHA MITCHELL SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY. i ^^ 



however, we are to judge of this matter by ordinar}^ 

 rules, it seems hig'hly improbable that an element of 

 such definite, postively marked characteristics can b}^ 

 any kind of condensation or combination be chang-ed 

 into such markedly opposite bodies as as fluorine and 

 sodium or chlorine and potassium. We are coming-- 

 more and more to reg-ard an element as representing' 

 an assemblag-e of properties. Thus chlorine stands 

 for a form of matter, gaseous and most energ-etically 

 neg-ative whilst a slig-ht increase of weig-ht brings us 

 to potassium a solid metal and most energ'etically posi- 

 tive and it is quite unlikely that this should be due 

 merely to a small additional condensation of such a 

 body as hvdrogen. It is contrary to the gradual 

 change of properties observed in cases of polymerism 

 or even homology in org-anic chemistr3\ 



The supposition of two or more primal elements, 

 condensed in varying proportions, is in accord with 

 phenomena known to us but of course is so far without 

 experimental or other basis if we exclude the mathe- 

 matico-spectroscopic work of Grunwald. Take for 

 instance, the widely different results obtained 

 by varying the ratio between nitrogen and hydrogen 

 in their compounds. Thus 3N and H give a well char- 

 acterized acid and N and 3H give an equally definite 

 base. This complete reversal of properties can no more 

 be attributed to the hydrogen alone than to the nitro- 

 gen. The primal elements might act in this wa}^ in 

 their condensation into the common elements. 



There is no basis for the formation ^of any hypothe- 

 sis as to the primal elements and speculations on this 

 score are as idle as the dreams of the early Greek phil- 

 osphers. The future ma}' bring such knowledge as 

 will afford the needed data. Certainlv we are a lono- 



