104 Editorial Note. 
anticipated me; that I should make such acknowledgment wil- 
gly, caring less who brin rings out new ideas, than for the ideas 
brought out; and in t the September number, on page 263, a note 
Before the September No. of the Journal was issued, Pro 
Hinrichs gave an abstract of a portion of his Atom Mec anics in 
the Journal of Mining publishe ed in New York City; and in the 
course of his SeaictabeRee “historical remarks” (Sept. 7) he took 
occasion to make public I his charge of plagiarism. The charge was 
followed, in the same Journal, by a brief statement of the facts by 
> a that the charge was utterly and completely without 
— 
statements and aia masisen which have been ar with the fur- 
er untrue —— that my former denial bens = full and com- 
ind and 
who adopt the view to wee and sesquiox eae The gene 
rmulas, on the new system, of the Uni escege Bisilicates and 
Subsilicates, are those of Odling, Wurtz, etc. The rec ognition of 
the grand types of Unisilicates, Bisilicates ae Subsilicates is the 
fundamental idea in the classification of the Silicates in my Mine- 
ralogy . 1854 (last = and is there brought out more fully 
any previous author. Moreover, in this same volume, the 
view that the oxyds, from pr otoxyd to tritoxyd, are mutually re> 
placeable, on the principle that prey wer equals combining 
power (an idea which I had deduced lo gs from the writings 
of G and Laurent), is adopted ecsgioek 
cis’ points do not appear to be embraced in the 
charge, but only the trivial one of placing, in the formulas, the 
S of the uniting oxygen, O, — the symbols of the acidic 
sic elements, 
n 
directly opposed to my eubliahea views. I adopted the plan sim- 
ply because the formulas thus no are aoe 
page, and were more easily comp in a table. 
