62 Notices respecting New Books. 



" Lavoisier put forward on this subject a very plausible theory, 

 which was founded on the well-known fact that, if a gas be com- 

 pressed, heat will be developed." This passage not only contains 

 a totally inadequate, and therefore erroneous statement of Lavoisier's 

 "plausible theory," but implies what is directly contrary to facts 

 well known to all who have paid any attention to the history of 

 chemistry — namely, that the phlogistic theory held its ground long 

 after it had been discovered that combustible bodies increase in 

 weight when burned, and that this observation first came to be 

 regarded as a serious objection to the theory when it was shown by 

 Lavoisier to be connected with the disappearance of part of the atmo- 

 sphere in which combustion takes place. 



Every one knows that the discovery of the composition of water 

 is attributed by some authorities to Cavendish, and by others to James 

 Watt : according to Dr. Apjohn, similar rival claims have been put 

 forward to the discovery of hydrogen itself. He says (p. 130), 



"Hydrogen was first distinguished by Cavendish in 1766, 



and to him the credit of its discovery is usually given, though in 

 modern times it has been claimed for Watt." 



Further on (p. 471) we are told that Lavoisier and De Morveau 

 burned the diamond in oxygen (discovered by Priestley in August 

 1774) about the year 1764. On page 212, the "difficulty of pro- 

 curing absolute nitric acid, N0 5 , now called nitric anhydride," is 

 stated to have "been recently overcome by Naeterer," a chemist 

 whose name we do not remember to have met with before, while 

 nothing is said about M. H. Sainte-Claire Deville as having had any- 

 thing to do with the matter. 



After these specimens of Professor Apjohn' s historical accuracy, 

 the reader will not be surprised at slight peculiarities of spelling in 

 the names of foreign chemists, such as Schonbein for Schonbein, 

 Schrotter for Schrotter, or Lassaign for Lassaigne ; but unless he is 

 very well acquainted with the Professor's style, he may be a little at 

 a loss on reading Bertholon (p. 255, and repeated in the index) in- 

 stead of Berthelot, or on being told (p. 407) that Lavoisier, instead of 

 Le Verrier, investigated oxide of phosphorus (or at least a substance 

 so called). 



We draw attention to these matters, not because the exact spelling 

 of a chemist's name is of much importance to a student who is be- 

 ginning the study of chemistry, but because they illustrate the inac- 

 curacy and carelessness which pervade the whole book and give it 

 throughout a slovenly air. Scrupulous accuracy in the statement of 

 scientific facts and theories need not be expected from an author who 

 thus wrongly names his authorities, or - allows such examples of 

 English composition as the following to go forth under his name : — 



Page 183. " We now come to consider the relative proportions of 

 the oxygen and nitrogen of which the atmosphere is chiefly composed. 

 This is always done by condensing the oxygen of a known volume 

 of atmospherical air, and measuring the nitrogen which is left." 



Page 248. " Schlossing has ascertained that distillation by heat 

 is not necessary ; and that a solution of ammoniacal salt, to which 

 a little hydrate of potash has been added, if placed for twenty-four 



