Mr. Beke on the Former Extent of the Persian Gulf. 107 



because, from theoretical considerations, which everybody 

 knows, he halves the combining proportion of hydrogen, and 

 therefore makes water to consist of one atom of oxygen united 

 with two atoms of hydrogen. 



The same observations apply to the expression used by me 



for phosphoric acid, namely, P. I view the phosphorus in 

 this acid as one atom, just as I view the nitrogen united with 

 five atoms of oxygen in the case of nitric acid, or with three 

 atoms of hydrogen in the case of ammonia, as one atom : 

 Berzelius views it as two, and therefore expresses phosphoric 



acid by P. In the original paper, I thought I had rendered 

 this evident, by always stating first in wortls what was after- 

 wards expressed by a formula, and particularly by adopting 

 the admirable plan of Berzelius of stating the relation between 

 the oxygen in the acid and that in the base or water ; but in 

 this your remarks prove that I have been unsuccessful. 



In the tabular exhibition of the formulas of various authors 

 to express crystallized phosphate of soda which you give, 



you set down to me N 3 H 3 * P, which is not exactly the ex- 

 pression I would have used. The formula which I would give 



is N- H P+ H 24 , i. e. the crystallized salt consists of two 

 atoms of soda and one atom of basic water united to the atom 

 of phosphoric acid, together with twenty-four atoms of water 

 of crystallization. In his formulae for the salts, Berzelius ar- 

 ranges the symbols so that the most positive ingredient stands 

 first. Now, from reasons which are explained in my paper, 

 I presume that, besides the soda, one atom of water is positive 

 to the acid, and not twenty-four, as you make me say. 

 I remain, dear Sir, yours, &c. 

 Glasgow, Dec. 16, 1833. Thomas Graham. 



w 



XXIII. On the Former Extent of the Persian Gulf', and on the 

 comparatively recent Union of the Tigris and Euphrates. 

 By Charles T. Beke, Esq.* 



HA TEV Eli may be the opinion of profane historians, 

 founded on tradition, we have no warrant from the 

 Scriptures themselves for the conclusion, that the City and 

 Tower of Babelf, the Babel of NimrodJ, and the Babel or Ba- 

 bylon of Nebuchadnezzar*?, were identical. I do not, of course, 

 intend to infer that their sites were different simply from the 



* Communicated by the Author ; being an extract from a Work on the 

 Geography of Sacred history, now in the prew. 



t Gen. xi. 4. <). \ (; C n x. 10. § Dan. iv. :(0. 



P 2 



