On Animal Fluids. SQl 



This, as far as T can find, is the sole experiment with acetic 

 acid and aloc^hnl, related by the aiubor to determine the 

 kind of -likali present, although he assertion is made oF the 

 animal Raids generally. But although the assertion be not 

 proved, it may be worth while to consider what, or whe- 

 ther anv thing, is proved by these experinjents ? Thev prove 

 that potash was present, because ihere was a precipitate 

 with tartaric acid, but nothing more— Jhere is no proof 

 that it was in the sta^e of muriate, as asserted. It perhaps 

 ■will be said that these e;.periments prove, that this " alco- 

 holic residue" contains also acetate of soda; "? for the same 

 residue treated with nitric acid was almost entirely re- 

 solved into rhomboidal crystals, amongst which I was un- 

 able to detect anv distinct prisms," Now, I have already 

 expressed my want of confidence in the figure of minute 

 crystals aingbj as evidence; especially, seen through glasses: 

 and here, I presume, is a decisive instance of their tdlacy ; 

 for potash being proved to be present, as already said by 

 Dr. Marcet, united to muriatic acid, it must have afl'orded 

 cubes, if reliance can be placed on forms ; but no such cubes 

 were seen. A farther objection occurs to my muui in this 

 experiment. I apprehend it is quite as likely to be true 

 that a!cohol will dissolve a small proportion of muriate of 

 soda, as according to Dr. Marcet it does of muriate of 

 potash. This being the case, the "alcoholic residue" ought 

 to have afforded cubes of muriate of soda as well as of muriate 

 of potash. The process under examination requires further 

 animadversion : — on the remaining part of it " potash was 

 easily discoverable in the residue insolqbie in alcohol, which 

 residue had now lost its deliquescent quality." That potash 

 m a combined stale was present I admit may be inferred, 

 but I say confidently, there is no proof that it was united 

 to muriatic acid. It is not incumbent on me, but on the 

 Affirmer, to show with what it is combined. I think it 

 right to notice another unsatisfactory part of the process 

 before me. It is said a concentrated solution of the saline 

 niass in question did not distinctly indicate potash by oxy- 

 muriaie of piatina, but did by tartaric acid. Subsequent Ivj, 

 liowever, we are told that the dissoluble as nell as the in- 

 dissoluble residue of the acetous compound in alcohol 

 readily denoted the presence of poiash to the oxvmuriate of 

 y)latina as well as to tartaric acid. To my apprehension, 

 1 own this account only shows that the quantiiics uere too 

 minute for distinct observation of facts. How all am- 

 biguity might have been removed, I have taken the liberty 

 <Df proposing in communing on this process in my former 



Com- 



