pt) 
. 
Discussion on Cellulose and Ligneous Fibre. 123 
“Is not the same the case with ammonium and the eos of the 
ethers? Do not these radicals furnish oxyds, chlorids, sulphuret 
not their pin er cting the part of ne resemble potassa and a 80 
mec as ev m to mislead? Have we not in the combinations of these 
radical tem as in seoteanis chemistry? Who is the chemist 
| 
. 
e to i pix dineeutils succeeding one mio oe have not sug- 
gested doubts concerning the nature of the s? 
“In a word, the efforts of modern semis for forty years, efforts with- 
out parallel from the first beginning of chemistry as a science, in which 
so much perseverance and so muc courage have been expended, have 
as a 
inorganic suey, ined subordinated to the same scheme thro cnt “all 
its products.” was Lavoisier who, on tracing out the route for us to 
follow, more than seventy years since, defined organic chemistry as the 
chemistry of compound radicals, and mineral chemistry the chemistry of 
undecomposable radicals.’ 
Dumas then refuted one after snother the facts brought forward by 
his antagonist in proof of his view. “If Mr. Despretz ‘thinks that by 
distilling: mercury, zine, or cadmium, these substances can be decomposed, 
he forgets that alchemists and the arts long ago threw hi 
est connection between the successive separations and the ecomposition 
of simple bodies; that there is nothing in common between those fortu- 
nate concentrations to which we owe the discovery of iodine, cadmium, 
selenium and bromine, rote “* at ee discussion concerning the 
principle of the unity of m 
umas presented the following conclusions: “Ist. It appears to m 
more and more probable that the equivalents of simple bodies are moalti- 
ples of the same unit; 2d, that the radicals of mineral chem mistry behave 
| inthe same way as the radicals of organic chemistry ; 3d, that it is im- 
_ possible, to prove that bodies reputed simple are un decomposable ;_ 
_ that if, even at the present ee simply by employing forces forces and means. 
4 already known, it is easy to contrive processes more powerful than th 
_ which Mr. Despretz has aphid for the purpose of Seat this 
4 decomposition, I regard it as my duty to affirm anew that in my opinion 
4 os processes, though more rational, will not probably be more effec- 
tual.” 
pe iscussion on aires and ligneous fibre. bre—While this discussion on 
was 
Judging from thin peor i coutibactl upon a indie tissues by 
» Sch reagent (see our Jast communication but one), domed admits 
_ at least two species of cellulose, for he has seen paper and textile fibres 
general dissolve in ammoniacal oxyd of copper, while elder- pith and 
ligneous fibre i in general resist its action. 
