ON THE ANIMAL FLUIDS. 



4t 



fjalt labelled by an assistant acetate of soda ; I theught it 

 best to leave the matter as doubtful, although I own I in- 

 clined to the contrary opinion of that which is I now believe 

 the truth. Dr. M. may call this a palpable errour, if he 

 pleases — he will hurt nobody but himself by the phrase. 

 The main proof is hereby not affected ; for the fact now 

 ascertained against my doubtful opinion is only a collateral 

 evidence on either side. 



5. Another source of evidence against me is that potash Proof of com- 

 combined " was proved by the tests oximuriatic of piatina, lI ^ *f 0t ^d 

 and tartaric acid." The just inference has been already 

 proposed ; but L will now remark that this experiment does 

 not prove, that soda was or was not present. 



As to any other proofs they have been already minutely 

 examined in my former communication, or have been an- 

 swered in this: but I entreat the indulgence of being Other instiffi- 

 allowed to make two or three farther remarks. 1. On the 

 fluid of the spina bifida, of the thorax, and of the pericar- 

 dium, the tartaric acid was not employed at all. Of these 

 fluids the analysis in general was very partial. 2. Of the 

 alkaline matter of the hydrocephalus fluid the examination 

 must be unsatisfactory by the tests, on account of the im- 

 practicability of entirely separating the two alkalies from 

 one another in such minute quantities as were obtained; 

 and, if the separation were not effected, as the two fixed 

 alkalies are affirmed to exist, the test, tartaric acid, must 

 have produced soda-tartrate of potash ; consequently the in- 

 ference of the adverse party cannot be just. 



. Having, as briefly as seemed proper, commented on the 

 opposing evidence, and set forth in a different light my 

 own, I must pay due respect to the other parts of the inge- 

 nious Answerer's paper. 



If it shall appear, that the only difference in the results Farther re» 

 of the inquiries by the two parties, worth particular notice, marlts ' 

 is with respect to the alkaline matter, I submit to the 

 world, whether or not Dr. M. could with prudence have 

 published his memoir without a reference to his predecessor, 

 as he observes he could have done with propriety ; and espe- 

 cially as he says he was directed particularly to the alkaline 

 impregnation by my paper. Dr. M» complains, that he is 



at 



