430 
Proceedings of the Eoyal Society 
of the University in 1861, a form of graphic notation which, while 
inferior in compactness to that of Kekule, appears to me preferable, 
as being at least equally clear and applicable to every formula in 
accordance with the theory of atomicity. 
In an able and suggestive paper published in the Bulletin de 
la Societe Chimique de Paris” for February 1865, Kekule uses a 
modification of his original notation, which to a great extent 
removes my first objection to it, but at the same time lays it open 
to another and more serious one — that of obscurity and ambiguity. 
That this is not an imaginary or trivial defect is made evident by 
the circumstance that Kekule has himself, in the paper referred to, 
been led into an error by his notation. In a foot note, pp. 103 and 
104, he says: — “On conceit cependant au point de vue de la 
theorie de Fatomicite Fexistence d’une categorie d’alcools, dont la 
constitution devra etre exprimee par les noms que je viens de citer. 
[Alcool methylo-ethylique, ethylo-methylique et dimethylo-methy- 
lique.] C’est cette categorie d’alcools dont la sagacite de M. Kolbe a 
prevu Fexistence. La difference entre ces alcools et Falcool 
propylique normal est assez clairement rendue par les figures 27 
et 28. 
n ne faut cependant pas confondre avec ce genre d’alcools 
isomeriques les pseudo- alcools que resultent de la reduction des 
acetones et que se rattachent evidemment aux acetones memes 
(figs. 29 et 30). 
II ne faut pas confondre non plus les pseudo-alcools additionnels 
que M. Wurtz a derives des hydrocarbures ; c’est une isomerie 
d’un ordre tout a fait different,” &c. The figures referred to are — 
oooc 
DOOC 
DOO 
DO 
Fig. 27. Alcool Propylique. 
OOOC 
DOOO 
Fig. 29. Acetone. 
o 
o 
Q_ 
PC —I lfOOO 
Fig. 28. Alcool Methyle- 
ethylique. 
oooc 
d 80 c 
3000 
Fig. 30. Alcool Acetonique. 
Now if we translate those formulee into any other system capable of 
