70 Royal Society. 



tiou of the formula whicli has been assigned to ethylene-phenylamine ? 

 Does the formula C^^ 11^ N actually represent the molecule of this 

 body, or is it not more correct to double that expression and to con- 

 sider the formula C^., 11^^ N^ as a more appropriate representation of 

 this molecule ? Ethylene-phenylamine would then be derived from 2 

 equivalents of ammonia, it would be a diamine, and the hydrochlorate 

 and the platinum-compounds would appear in the light of diammo- 

 uium-compounds. 



(C H V 1 

 Diethylene-diphenyl-diamine .V, ' tt*<^ > N^. 



s^^i^i^"'^^ (c;jii' 1n.,ci,. 



"H, J 

 Platinum-salt ^^^^ ^ J^'' | ^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^ 



h:' J ■ ■ 



At the first glance it certainly ajipears strange that a molecule 

 capable of assimilating 2 equivs. of hydrochloric acid should unite 

 only with 1 equiv. of iodide of methyle or ethyle, well established 

 members of the hydrochloric type. But this deportment after all is 

 not without parallelism. 



The expression 



originally established for quinine by Liebig, supported as it was by 

 the analysis of numerous salts of the formula 



a„H,,NO„HX, 



and especially by that of a platinum-compound, 



a„ Hj, N0„, HCl, PtCl, aq, 



was universally adopted by chemists. 

 A few quinine-salts of the formula 



2(C,„H,N0,), HX 



were considered as anomalous, as basic compounds ; and it was not 

 luitil the methylic and ethylic derivatives of quinine, 



2C,oH,2N02, C2H3I and 



2C,„H,,N0„C,H,I, 



had been discovered that chemists began to consider the formula 



C,„H„.N,0, 



as a more appropriate expression for the molecule of quinine. 



Probably further examination of the salts of ethylene-phenylamine 



