on the Haloid Compounds of Mercury. 431 
Another circumstance which demonstrates the incorrectness of the popular theory 
of this body, is the fact that 100 of sublimate yield only 93,1 of product ; on Hen- 
nell’s view, there should be 99,5 of white precipitate for 
1 atom of mercury 202,80 give 1 atom mercury 202,80 
2 of chlorine 70,84 2 oxygen 16,00 
1 muriatic acid 36,42 
273,64 1 ammonia iy pas 
272,37 
The source of error in such analyses, evidently consisted in not having dried the 
white precipitate until it ceased to lose weight. 
In the Memoir already quoted, George Mitcherlich adopts the hypothesis just 
described, and his doing so has created great confusion. He gives the name 
Chlor-Wasserstoff Siure to the hypothetic dry muriatic acid; and his formula 
(NH + M) + He is so constructed. ‘This is shown by the numbers for muriatic acid 
and ammonia, 10,7 and 7,1, which, he states, form sal-ammoniac, (dry). In order to 
get his value for chlorine, given in the table of results, p. 425, I had to add to his 
muriatic acid, half the oxygen which he gives to the oxide of mercury. In fact, his 
analysis, correctly interpreted, overturns the very hypothesis which it has been sup- 
posed to be in accordance with, for— 
Mercury 76,37 
Dry muriatic acid 10,7 : 
Oxygen p 3,12 Chlorine 13,82 
Ammonia 7,10 
97.29 
leaves only a vacancy of 2,71 per cent for the oxygen to 
oxidize the whole of the quicksilver. 
Not having access to Guibourt’s Memoir, I can only speak of his opinions and re- 
sults, by the references made to him by Thenard,* and other writers. He considers 
white precipitate to be composed of corrosive sublimate, peroxide of mercury and 
ammonia in proportions, giving the formula— 
fs (2Ch + Hg) + enurt + 43 lig+2 wut 
which gives as the per centage result— 
Mercury 78,71 
Chlorine 13,78 
Oxygen 3,10 
Ammonia 4,41 
100,00 
* Traité Elémentaire de Chimie. 
VOL. XVII. 4G 
