Intelligence and Miscellaneous Articles. 1 65 



of educational manuals which, as we have already stated, enjoys the 

 recommendation of the Committee of Council on Education. On 

 examining the book, we found that it fell very far short of what an 

 introductory text-book of Chemistry ought, in our judgment, to be; 

 and we felt it needful to express our opinion of it all the more em- 

 phatically, since we thought it probable that the circumstances of its 

 publication would secure for it a considerable circulation, quite in- 

 dependently of its intrinsic merits. Dr. Apjohn's statement that the 

 first edition is already nearly out of print, confirms us in this sup- 

 position. We did not, however, condemn the work in vague and 

 general terms. We stated as clearly as we were able the grounds of 

 our objection to it, quoting literally several passages in support of 

 our charges, and accompanying the quotations with precise references 

 to the pages where they might be found in the original. But not- 

 withstanding all our care and our anxiety to quote fairly and cor- 

 rectly, Professor Apjohn brings against us the charge of " misstate- 

 ment or distortion of facts." This charge is made with reference 

 to what is said (p. 61 of the review) respecting Dr. Apjohn's treat- 

 ment of the compounds of carbon and hydrogen. In the review it is 

 stated that " the usual list of hydrocarbons is very much curtailed " 

 by our author ; and this passage is followed by a quotation from the 

 book under review, which we conceive fully bears out our assertion. 

 Professor Apjohn now states that, in writing that passage, he had 

 in view only those compounds of carbon and hydrogen which are 

 usually treated of among inorganic compounds. In answer to this, 

 w T e can only say that, whatever the author's intention may have 

 been, nothing of this kind is apparent in the book itself: the pas- 

 sage we have quoted is the opening passage of the section devoted 

 to these compounds, and is immediately preceded by the heading 

 carbo-hyorogens in small capitals. The following is the whole 

 of the first paragraph of this section, and we leave the reader to 

 judge whether a charge of " misstatement or distortion " in connexion 

 with it is most applicable to Professor Apjohn or to ourselves : — 



" The number of compounds of carbon and hydrogen is very 

 great. Those at present known are reducible to three groups : — 

 Those whose general formula is C n H n , those represented by C n H n+ i, 

 and those by C n H n +2, n being always an even number. The sub- 

 ject of these hydrocarbons belongs properly to organic chemistry, 

 but there are a few of them to which the student must direct an early 

 attention. Those which will be considered here are only two in 

 number, and belong, one to the first, the other to the third group. 

 The former is called olefiant, the latter marsh-gas." 



Professor Apjohn also takes exception to what we have said in 

 reference to the history of the antiphlogistic theory of combustion. 

 In reply, we have only to state that we were concerned, not with 

 what he regards as " a full refutation of the Stahlian theory," but 

 with what was regarded as such a refutation by the contemporaries 

 of Ray and Mayow and of Lavoisier ; and that we objected to his 

 statement of Lavoisier's theory of combustion, not because we con- 

 ceived that he has wrongly represented Lavoisier's views with re- 

 spect to the production of light and heat, but because it seems to 



