47 
The report of the International Committee on Atomic Weights, 
1906, points out that during the year 1905 there has been unusual 
activity in the determination of atomic weights and that some of the 
work done relates to the most fundamental values. A general revision 
of the table would seem to be needed in the near future. A single 
table, based on 0=16, is presented. — J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1906, v. 28, 
pp. 1-7. 
Clarke, F. W., in presenting the Thirteenth Annual Report of the 
Committee on Atomic Weights, points out that the developments of 
the next year or two are likely to bring about many changes in the 
accepted atomic weights. — IbicL, v. 28, pp. 293-315. 
J. E. G. calls attention to the note in the last report, for 1906, of 
the International Committee on Atomic Weights, to the effect that 
recent work on chlorine and nitrogen indicates that an entire revision 
of the atomic weights may soon be necessary. He notes that for 
nitrogen the results obtained by independent workers, using different 
substances and both gravimetric and volumetric methods, necessitates 
the acceptance of the value 14.01 instead of the value 14.04, as found 
by the indirect gravimetric methods, and as adopted by the inter- 
national committee. He quotes Guye's suggestion that the difference 
in the atomic weight of nitrogen, as obtained by the older gravi- 
metric methods and by the physical-chemical methods, may be due to 
the use of too high an atomic weight for silver, which probably lies 
between 107.871 and 107.859, and can not be as high as 107.93. — Am. 
Chem. J., 1906, v. 35, pp. 458-463. 
12. CHEMICAL FORMULAS. 
Stevens, A. B., remarks that a few idealists believe that structural 
formulas should have no jidace in a pharmacopoeia, but should be con- 
fined to text or reference books. — Proc. Michigan Pharm. Ass., 1906, 
p. 95. 
Arny, H. V., considers the reduction of chemical formulas to their 
simplest form (Hg 2 I 2 to Hgl e. g.) a sacrifice of theory to sim- 
plicity, and in view of the present indefinite knowledge of the real 
molecular weights of these bodies, the change is perhaps for the best. 
From the pedagogic standpoint, however, the new formulas are less 
easy to explain than were the old. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, 
v. 78, p. 12. 
Schimpf, Henry W., considers the elongated method of indicating 
the formula of ammonium carbonate is the better, in that it more 
readily shows the constitution of the commercial salt to be a mixture 
of ammonium bicarbonate and carbamate. — Ibid., v. 78, p. 20. 
Leffman, Henry, finds that among the special features deserving 
strong disapproval is the introduction of structural formulas. What 
