November 18, 1921] 



SCIENCE 



481 



lose might run the entire gamut of hydrosy- 

 aldehydes, hydroxyketones, hydroxyacids, keto- 

 acids, etc., that could result from a product 

 having two secondary and one primary alcohol 

 groups for each six carbon atoms. Since the 

 oxidation reaction is not infrequently accom- 

 panied by hydrolysis, the possible number of 

 products is accordingly increased. We have 

 here a limitless field for speculation, and can 

 think of an indefinite number of oxycelluloses, 

 depending upon the type of oxidizing agent, the 

 conditions of oxidation, on the amount of ox- 

 idation product adsorbed on the residual cellu- 

 lose, and possibly on other factors as well. It 

 is quite evident that we can hardly hope for a 

 homogeneous substance, and it is obvious that 

 oxycellulose is a very vague and illusive term. 

 It has no particular chemical significance and 

 yet it persists in our present-day text-books 

 on cellulose. The term " hydrocellulose " and 

 " cellulose hydrates " enjoy a similar distinc- 

 tion. The former has been shown to be a mix- 

 ture of hydrolytic degradation products of 

 cellulose and cellulose itself. Whereas the lat- 

 ter (in many cases at least) appears to be cellu- 

 lose itself — changed physically it is true — ^but 

 hardly meriting the term applied to it. 



I might continue further and point out the 

 incongruities in our literature on lignocellulose 

 and the other so-called " compound celluloses," 

 or the ever-shifting meaning of the term cellu- 

 lose itself when applied to a substance other 

 than the seed hairs of the cotton plant. Further 

 reference is tmnecessary however. It is quite 

 clear that we have certain chemically meaning- 

 less but highly respected terms in onv cellulose 

 literature, that the results of numberless ex- 

 periments remain uncorrelated with the prop- 

 erties of the typical cellulose and that our 

 cellulose literature is becoming increasingly 

 unwieldy. I hasten to add, however, that in 

 certain quarters this lack of critique and cohe- 

 sion is rapidly being remedied — and it is in 

 these quarters that our monographers should 

 seek their inspiration. 



To my mind, the primary objects of any 

 monograph on cellulose are: (1) to stimulate 

 further research along scientifically profitable 

 channels; (2) to present the literature in such 



a way that the reader may have a reliable means 

 of knowing whether or not previous statements 

 can be accepted without reservation; (3) to 

 present the data with a view towards giving the 

 reader a comprehensive survey of the cellulose 

 field without losing him in a maze of detail; 

 (4) to pave the way for a more satisfactory 

 definition of the term cellulose. 



To gain these objectives, the author should 

 remain uninfluenced (whenever necessary) by 

 the orthodox procedure of previous vreiters, and 

 should approach his problem in an essentially 

 modern spirit. He must effect a liaison between 

 some of the hitherto isolated facts in cellulose 

 chemistry. He should use the greatest critical 

 ability at his command, and give weight to re- 

 sults of those investigators who have used 

 proper critique in their own work. Further- 

 more, he should select his material in such a 

 way that with slight revision and proper addi- 

 tions, the work would remain a standard book 

 of reference for a number of years to come. 



It is quite possible to cleverly compile into 

 a scholarly treatise (or series of treatises) a 

 mass of detailed information — but such a 

 volume would hardly meet our requirements. 

 We need a critical compilation — sugges- 

 tively written — that will give due weight to 

 important qualitative reactions of cellulose 

 and to the results of quantitative studies as 

 well. The danger of formulating hypotheses 

 on the basis of purely qualitative reactions 

 should be constantly kept in mind. Articles 

 in which unwarranted conclusions have been 

 drawn without sufiicient data, or in which 

 the critic of the investigator is questionable 

 should be subordinated or entirely deleted. 

 Many of the vague terms now in common 

 usage in the cellulose literature should be re- 

 defined or excluded. 



Technological aspects of cellulose chemistry 

 deserve no place in such a monograph. Para- 

 doxical as it may seem, such a volume should 

 in the end prove more serviceable and sug- 

 gestive to the cellulose industry than would 

 one which is diluted with references to the 

 technological processes. This is especially 

 true since we are already in possession of 

 some noteworthy monographs in which these 



