ELISHA MITCHELL SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY 31 
will suffice to give the more recent trend of thought upon the 
subject. I may state that none of these were known to me 
when the first paper was sent on for publication’ as I had not 
deemed it necessary to look beyond the usual text-books in 
examining into the literature upon the subject. This state- 
ment is not made for personal reasons as that is a matter of 
small moment, but that there may attach to my hypothesis 
whatever of value there is in the independent reaching of a 
conclusion. 
It is not pertinent to this paper to discuss at any length 
the citations just given. But a few words are needed to 
bring out certain differences and distinctions. In most of 
them we have the assumption of some peculiar form of en- 
ergy—an ‘‘Anziehungskraft.” Flawitzky alone makes no 
explicit assumption of the kind. Besides this assumed force, 
which is the point of contention after all, we have various 
other assumptions of a remarkable character; ¢. 9., as to the 
forms of atoms, envelopes, primal atoms, and Valenzkorper. 
Flawitzky’s hypothesis is based upon the angles made _ be- 
tween the planes in which the atoms move. 
Now in the place of all this I wish to substitute that which 
seems to me to be the simpler hypothesis of vibratory equil- 
ibrium. There is only one attractive force to be considered 
and this is called chemical affinity and causes the union of 
the atoms, binding them together. These atoms may unite 
atom with atom,or one atom with two or three or more atoms 
of the other element or other elements, While we speak of 
union there is no actual contact to be assumed. The indi- 
vidual atoms have their own motion and at the same time 
the aggregation of atoms, or molecule, has a motion proper 
to it. ‘The conditions of equilibrium in such a system deter- 
mine the number of atoms which can enter it: as one to one, 
one to two, etc. ‘There is no distinct force of valence deter- 
mining this. The form of the atoms can scarcely be taken 
into consideration because the distance between the atoms is 
too great, compared with the mass of the atom, for the form 
1In the Journal of the American Chemical Society, 
