H. J. Clark.—Tubularia Not Parthenogenous, 61 
another method of using the chlorid of luteocobalt, which is also 
deserving of attention. 
The separation of the metals contained in the mass of sulphids 
precipitated in the separation of iridium from rhodium, ruthe- 
nium and platinum, by the method already pointed out, may be 
very conveniently effected in the following manner. The mixed 
sulphids are to be dried, separated from the filter and intimately 
mixed in a mortar with an equal weight of a mixture of equal 
parts of carbonate and nitrate of baryta. The filter is to be 
burned and the ash mixed with the sulphids and baryta salts. 
The mixture is then to be ignited in a porcelain or earthen cruci- 
ble for an hour at a full red heat, and the mass, which does not 
fuse, treated with strong chlorhydric acid, which dissolves the 
oxyds of rhodium, ruthenium and platinum completely, leaving 
only sulphate of baryta. The baryta is then to be precipitated by 
sulphuric acid, an excess of which must be carefully avoided, and 
then a solution of chlorid of luteocobalt added as long as a pre- 
cipitate is formed. The double chlorid of rhodium and luteocobalt 
may then be filtered off and thoroughly washed with boiling water 
acidulated with chlorhydric acid. By igniting this salt and dis- 
solving the chlorid of cobalt out from the mass, pure metallic 
rhodium remains. The platinum and ruthenium in the filtrate 
may then be separated by means of nitrite of potash and alcohol 
im the manner already described. 
This method of treating the sulphids requires only a small 
quantity of chlorid of luteocobalt, is extremely easy of applica- 
tion and is much shorter than the first method which I haye 
described. Taken in connection with the process for separating 
iridium by means of nitrite of soda and sulphid of sodium, it 
furnishes ‘an easy and complete solution of the problem of the 
qualitative or quantitative separation of the metals of this group, 
osmium only being determined by the loss. 
Cambridge, Nov. 10th, 1863. 
(To be continued.) 
Art. VI.—Tubularia Not Parthenogenous; by Prof. Henry 
JAMES CLARK, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
tt is with no small degree of pleasure that I announce the 
discovery of the eggs of the Tubularians. During the middle of 
ctober I had in my aquarium the three most_common species, 
this group, on our shores, viz: Tubularia indivisa Lin. (T. 
Couthouyi Ag.) Thamnoenidia coronata Ag. (Tubularia coronata 
Abild., Thamnoenidia spectabilis Ag.) —— calamaris? (P. 
crocea Ag., Tubularia calamaris Van Ben.?). In each of these 
T have traced the development of the egg, from its inception to 
