Oil Chemical JYomendature. 265 



The difference between the oxysalts, and the halosaUs is very ea- 

 sily illustrated by formulse. In K|FF — fluoride of potassium, there 

 is but one single line of substitution, that is to say, that of K|FF, 

 whilst in KOOOOS (sulphate of potash) there are two, K|OOOOS 

 and KOjOOOS of which we use the first in replacing one metal by 

 another, for instance, copper by iron ; and the second in replacing 

 one oxide by another. 



I do not know what value you may attach to this development of 

 the constitution of the oxysalts (which applies equally to the sulpho- 

 salts and others:) but as to myself, I have a thorough conviction, 

 that there is therein, something more than a vague speculation ; since 

 it unfolds to us an internal analogy in phenomena, which, agreeably 

 to the perception of our senses, are externally analogous. If these 

 phenomena are to be considered agreeably to the ideas of Mr. De 

 Bondsdorff, how does it happen that sulphur, phosphorus, arsenic, 

 and other radicals of the strongest oxacids, when united with chlorine, 

 bromine, iodine, he, do not combine with chlorides,* bromides, 

 &c., of the metals of the alkalies and of the earths ; whilst the chlo- 

 ride and bromide of potassium combine easily with those of magne- 

 sium, iron, and manganese. Should then the chloride of magnesium, 

 or that of manganese, be a stronger acid than the chloride of sulphur, 

 or chloride of phosphorus ? How is it consistent with these ideas 

 that we can obtain crystallized salts as well with, as without water, 

 of combination, composed of chloride of calcium and of oxalate, or 

 of acetate of lime? Should the oxysalt be here the acid, or the 

 base ? 1 have now displayed to you, the considerations which have 

 guided me, and which I think are not destitute of foundation. 



I cheerfully admit that it would be preferable to employ the word 

 chlorohydric, instead of hydrochloric. My motive for retaining this 

 last, is, that I have ventured to propose a new nomenclature in a 

 language foreign to me, in which it was inexpedient to make changes 

 which could be avoided without inconvenience. I also agree with 

 you, that we ought not to use combustible and oxidable, as having 

 the same meaning. I have deserved your strictures for this incon- 

 sistency in my language ; but I must suggest as an apology, that the 

 two words were formerly used as synonymous, and that the work, 

 in which you have recently noticed this oversight, was first published 

 in 1806, having been from time to time remoulded for new editions, 



* I have translated chlorure, fluorure, bromure, by chloride, fluoride, and bro- 

 mide, agreeably to the practice of the British chemists. 



Vol. XXXII.— No. 2. 34 



