260 



diamine-cohalti-chloro-tcwtrate has triclinic-pedial symmetry '), the 

 less soluble tri-ethylenediamine-rhodium-chloro-tartrate, however, 

 monoclinic and perhaps sphenoidical symmetry, without the least 

 analogy of the parameters existing between them. No analogy 

 of form whatever can be stated between the two kinds of 

 chloro-tartrates ; and in agreement with this lack of isomorphism, 

 direct analysis showed that, while the cobalti-ssxU crystallises with 

 5 molecules H^O, the less soluble rhodium-ssilt contains only 4 

 molecules of water of crystallisation, — the respective data in Werner's 

 paper being obviously erroneous. There can be therefore not the least 

 doubt about the truth of the fact that we have not to deal here 

 with isomorphous salts of corresponding constitution, but with quite 

 different substances. In connection with what was said above, we are 

 therefore compelled to conclude from these facts, that the complex 

 tri-ethylenediamine-rhodium-\ox\ present as a radical in the corresponding 

 chloro-d-tartrate, has not the same configuration in space as the radical 

 occurring in the less soluble cohalti-chloro-d-tartmte, but that it 

 possesses on the contrary, precisely the antilogous stereometrical 

 configuration in comparison with it. And because the tri-ethylene- 

 diamine-rhodiuni-iodide set free from this chloro-d-tartrate, and all salts 

 derived from it, appear to be /«<?i;ogyratory, it follows from this that 

 the stereometrical configuration of optically-active triethylenediamine- 

 cobalti-, and rhodium-ions of the same direction of rotation, must be 

 the same also, — a fact which a priori might have appeared most 

 probable. 



The d-cobalti-ssihs must therefore possess the same arrangement of 

 the radicals round their central metal-atom as the d-rhodium-salts, 

 and the l-cobalti-ssiits the same as the l-rhodium-ssdts. 



^ 15. With this conclusion at the same time Werner's supposition 

 of the strange, rather arbitrarily conjectured specific influence of the 

 central /^Ac-atom, concerning the total inversion of the direction of 

 rotation of the original dissymmetrical complex, needs to be given up. 

 The analogously arranged dissymmetrical complexes containing Cr, 

 Co, or Rho, must all exhibit the same direction of rotation, and only 

 the absolute size of it may be different and varying in the way 

 indicated by Werner. This specific rotation is therefore evidently 

 determined chiefly by the special configuration in space of the radicals 

 placed round the central atom, and by the specific dissymmetry of 



1) F. M. Jaeger, Proceed. Kon. Acad. Amsterdam, 18, 54, 55. (1*J15). 



