360 MisceUaniea. 



I analysed a very poor specimen of anthopbyllite, some years ago. 

 The constituents were as follows: specific gravity 3,1558. 



Atoms. 



Silica, - - - 56.290 - - - 28.14 or 35.8 



Magnesia, - - 19.665 - - 7.86 



Protoxide of iron - 7.280 - - - 1.61 



Potash, - - 13.500 - - 2.25 



Alumina, - - 1.545 - - - 0.68 



Water, - - 1.685 - - 1.5 



10. 

 2.04 

 2.86 

 0.86 

 1.9 



99.965 

 You perceive that in true anthophyllite, if the magnesia be consider- 

 ed the same, the protoxide of iron is only one half what is in your 

 specimen ; the potash is about one fourth more, and the water is only 

 one tenth of the quantity in your mineral. The formula for antho- 

 phyllite is I0iMS3+3KS+2/S-. 



The two minerals are therefore not the same. Perhaps your spe- 

 cimen may be called hydrous anthophyllite j but it must be reckoned 

 a new species. 



JYote. — The mineral analysed by Dr. Thomson, and ascertained 

 to be a new species, is, I believe, rather abundant near New York, 

 and formerly went under the name of radiated actynolite and asbes- 

 tus, but was subsequently, from comparison with European speci- 

 mens, supposed to be anthophyllite. A. F. H. 



8. Penetrativeness of fluids. — The memoir of Dr. J. K. Mitchell 

 on this subject, published in the Am. Jour, of Med. Sci. of Phila- 

 delphia, for November, is replete with interesting facts and deduc- 

 tions, and deserves a distinct analysis, which neither our time or limits 

 will permit us to give. 



9. Albany Institute. — The transactions for October and Novem- 

 ber have been published ; the former contain a discourse delivered 

 on its first anniversary, April 23d, 1830, by Benj. F. Butler. The 

 latter, a notice of the graphite of Ticonderoga ; a piece on the ap- 

 parent radiation of cold, by Prof. B. F. Joslin, and another, contain- 

 ing the elements of the solar eclipse of Feb. 12, 1831. 



