>]0 REPORT — 1860. 



that there could have heen no communication of the current over the surface of the 

 glass. This was further proved by removing the outer wire a short distance from the 

 liquid, when sparks passed nearly equal in length to those between wires from the ter- 

 minals. As the outer wire was further removed, keeping it near the flask, sparks 

 passed along the surface of the latter for a short distance; and as it was further re- 

 moved from the liquid, still being near the flask, they ceased, thus showing that there 

 was no passage of electricity over the upper and unwetted surface of the glass. With 

 unacidulated water no electrolysis was observed, nor when a battery of thirty cells 

 was used instead of RuhmkorfF's coil. In the first experiment the evolution of gas 

 gradually diminished, and ceased in about twenty minutes, but recommenced on rever- 

 sing the current. Mr. Grove concluded that the electrolysis was effected by induction 

 across the thin glass of the Florence flask, and that its cessation indicated something 

 like a state of charge or polarization of the surface of the glass. 



On the Oxidation of Potassium and Sodium. By A. Vernon Harcourt. 



On the Composition of the Ash of Wheat grown under various circumstances. 

 By J. B. Lawes, F.R.S., and Dr. J. H. Gilbert. 



On the Atomic Weight of Oxygen. By Prof. W. A. Miller, M.D., F.R.S. 



In this paper tbe author pointed out some practical objections to Gerhardt's pro- 

 posal for doubling the atomic number for oxygen. 



It has been stated that one advantage which would be obtained by adopting the pro- 

 posal, would be that it would remove all inconsistency in the vapour volumes of all 

 compound bodies by representing them all as of equal volume. 



The author commenced by showing that this assumed consistency was onlyimaginary, 

 inasmuch as such uniformity does not exist in nature. In addition to the differences 

 existing between the vapour volumes of the protoxide and deutoxide of nitrogen, similar 

 irregularities exist in the volume of chlorous acid, and of bisulphide of mercury and 

 some other bodies. 



The practical objections, if a notation in harmony with this view were adopted, were, 

 he stated, of still greater weight, and might be summed up as follows : — 



1. The ordinary notation is known to every one who has made the science of che- 

 mistry his study. 2. All the memoirs, with the exception of a few in later years, are 

 written in accordance with this system, and a change of notation would at once render 

 these memoirs less easily accessible and intelligible. 3. The new notation required 

 would not be in harmony with the language of chemistry, NO, for example, would be 

 called binoxide of nitrogen, but written as a protoxide. 4. The present system of 

 notation is capable of expressing all the later theories with perfect precision, while it 

 is applicable to the older views ; but the new notation is not applicable to many of the 

 older views. By the ordinary notation, nitrate of potash, for instance, may be repre- 

 sented either as a compound of potash and nitric acid (KO, N0 5 ), or as a combination 

 of potassium with nitrion (K, N0 6 ), or as an aggregation of particles without indicating 

 any specific mode of combination (KN0 6 ) ; whereas, in the new notation, unless its 

 principle is abandoned by doubling the formulae, it is impossible that (KNQ 3 ) should 

 be represented as formed of potash and nitric acid. It would therefore be a retro- 

 grade step thus to exclude from our notation the power of indicating the constitution 

 of a large class of compounds upon a view which has long been more or less prevalent. 

 5. Any extensive change of nomenclature or of notation, while the truth of the 

 theory upon which it rests is still under discussion, cannot but lead to serious incon- 

 venience. If such a practice were admitted, every new theory would be privileged to 

 introduce a new language, which, in a continually progressive science like chemistry, 

 would soon give way to an equally transitory successor. Chemistry, it must be re- 

 membered, is not merely a science : it is also an art, which has introduced its nomen- 

 clature and its notation into our manufactories, and, in some measure, even into daily 

 life ; it is therefore specially necessary to beware of needless innovation. Any system 

 of notation, it must also be borne in mind, is a mere artificial contrivance to represent 

 to the mind certain changes or certain hypotheses ; and to argue for a system of nota- 



