PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 497 
elements which implied that their behaviour was that of compound sub- 
stances; the feeling that this is the case has long been general among 
chemists. Our present attitude towards this problem is a curious one and 
not altogether satisfactory—it is impossible to deny that we have somewhat 
lost sense of proportion, even if our methods have not savoured of the 
unscientific. The discovery of radium appears to have upset our balance— 
we have been carried away by the altogether mysterious and unprecedented 
behaviour of this weird and wondrous substance. But may we not ask: Is 
radium an element? Has it not been too generally, too hastily assumed 
that it is? Little as we know of it, does not its behaviour straightway out- 
class it as an element? Surely it does! Is not the established fact that an 
emanation proceeds from it, which in turn decomposes and gives rise to 
helium, a proof of its compound nature? Again, is the evidence of such a 
character as to justify us in asserting that uranium is the parent of radium % 
If it be such, must not uranium also disappear from the list of elements ; 
must it not indeed be removed on the ground that it gives rise to uranium—« 
without any reference to its supposed relationship to radium ? 
The answers given to such questions must depend on our definition of an 
element. At present we seem to be without one. 
The conception that the break-down of radium is spontaneous and apart 
from all external impulse or control is also one which should be received 
with caution. There is reason to suppose that in all ordinary cases in which 
compounds undergo decomposition spontaneously, the decomposition is con- 
ditioned by an impurity ; the effect, moreover, is usually cumulative. This 
is true of highly explosive substances, such as chloride of nitrogen and gun- 
cotton, for example. It might be supposed that something similar would 
happen in the case of radium—but apparently such is not the case; it 
is assumed that occasionally a molecule explodes spontaneously, not only 
without being incited thereto but also without in any way affecting its 
neighbours. 
The alternative explanation that radium in some way acts as a receiver, 
would then be called to the fact that in the majority of cases the substances used 
are of unknown molecular composition. 
If a student see sodium chloride always represented as NaCl or, what is worse, 
in accordance with a growing evil custom, learn to speak of it as Wn-ay-cee-el, 
it becomes difficult to persuade him that probably such a formula is a misleading 
expression—at all events, in no way the expression of known fact. Nothing 
could be worse than the tendency which is coming over us to speak of substances 
in terms of their formule instead of by name. It is difficult to understand what 
can be gained by referring, for example, to’carbon dioxide as C'ce-oh-too. Such 
vulgarisms and also the substitution of formule for written or printed names 
should be discountenanced on every possible occasion. 
The reproach is not unfrequently levelled at us that scientific workers lack 
literary style and that they do not take sufficient pains in describing their work 
clearly and concisely—too often with justice. At all events, as the complaint 
has been made from the Chair at several recent anniversary meetings of the Royal 
Society, some notice should be taken of it.* 
Solecisms are only too abundant in our literature. It is sheer carelessness 
to speak of compounds ‘adding’ this or that, instead of saying that they combine 
with it; the statement that a substance ‘analyses’ is inexcusable. The use of 
such expressions is proof that no thought has been exercised in writing. 
An old writer has expressed an eternal truth in saying: ‘All soche Authors 
as be fullest of good matter and right judgement in doctrine be likewise always 
pen proper in wordes, most apte in sentence, most plain and pure in uttering 
the same.’ 
ee ERR 8 ee es eeeenee eerie Serre eS 
2 Complaint is made even in Germany. Compare von Lippmann: ‘ Ueber 
den Stil in den deutschen chemischen Zeitschriften,’ Chemiker-Zeitung, May 6, 
1909, p. 489. 
