was 
G, F. Barker—Physiological Chemistry. 239 
In the first place, then, the formula should indicate the mon- 
acid character of urea; hence, it may be written Ny (yyy, 
a formula recommended by its simplicity; or N 
In both cases, ammonium radicals replace the hydrogen of am- 
monia. Which of these formulas is the more correct? 
The ureas are distinguished: 1st, by their composition; being 
ammonia, in which carbonyl (€9@) a bivalent negative radical, 
has replaced hydrogen; and 2nd, by their monacid character. 
Under this definition are included the compound ureas also, — 
formed from ordinary urea precisely as ethylamine, etc., are — 
formed from ammonia. Heintz proposes to extend this defini- 
tion, and to call any ammonia-like body which contains a biva- 
lent acid radical and which is monacid, a urea, Such a com- 
((€,H,O)H,N 
N . 
2H, Seay . Of course then, the formula of the prim- 
2 
(€,H,0)H 
: (€,H,0)H,N)’ 7 
ary amid is N i wig yt , and its name is oxethylen- 
ammonamid. Since therefore, urea is analogous to this pri- 
bed amid, both in composition and formation, (being produced 
y the action of ammonia upon urethane (ethylic carbamate)), 
((60)H,N) 
it follows that the formula of urea is N E ‘2 
that this body is carbammonamid, the amid of carbamic acid, 
cyan oxethylenammonamid is the amid of oxethylenamic 
ll). 
acid (glycocoll) 
* This substance has not been actually prepared; though Heintz promises ex- 
Perimental proof of the accuracy of the above reaction. - 
