174 BRITISH PHARMACEUTICAL CONFERENCE. 
The method I adopt in testing sal volatile for methylic alcohol, is to first 
dilute it with an equal amount of water, then neutralize the ammonia with 
dilute sulphuric acid, and distil carefully over an amount about equal to the 
original spirit. I then test a portion of the distillate with the iodo-hydrargy- 
rides of potassium; and, if a further test is desirable, I apply the oxidation 
method of testing to another portion. 
‘ I tl conclusion, to sum up the results of this paper in a few words :— 
Chloroform can be, and is, prepared from methylated spirit as good as, and the 
same in chemical composition as, that from pure alcohol; consequently, there 
can be no test to distinguish between them, there being no difference in them. 
Methylated ether can principally be detected by its boiling-point. 
And the presence of methylic alcohol in sweet nitre and sal volatile can be 
thoroughly proved, by both the iodo-hydrargyride of potassium test and the 
oxidation method of testing. 
Wilton , near Salisbury , August, 1865. 
Mr. Reynolds queried if aldehyde, as found in sp. asther. nitr. did not interfere 
with Mr. Tuck’s mercurial test, since it certainly did so in the case of Mr. Emerson 
Reynolds’s test, which the speaker had been accustomed to regard as similar in its re¬ 
sults to that of Mr. Tuck. 
Mr. Tuck was glad that this question had been raised, since it gave him an .opportu¬ 
nity of referring to a charge of plagiarism that had been directed against him. He com¬ 
pared the two mercurial tests, and denied that they were the same when differing so 
widely. He also might say that he had undertaken the investigation of the subject long 
before the appearance of Mr. E. Reynolds’s paper.* 
Dr. Attfield said that no one would for a moment suppose that Mr. Tuck had appro¬ 
priated any ideas from Mr. Emerson Reynolds; the tests proposed by these gentlemen 
■were, at all events apparently , too distinct to admit of such a supposition. As to the 
rationale of each of the two processes, we must learn a great deal more before asserting 
that the results were identical, since we were unable to say with precision what those 
results were or were not in either case. He certainly believed that they would, be found 
very similar. Before sitting down, he would call the attention of the meeting to the 
subject of chloroform, showing that whether ethylic or methylic alcohol be used the 
result is identical, the latter being in fact the better source as far as chemical theory 
was concerned, for chloroform was doubtless the chloride of tri-chlor-methyl 
(C., H Cl 3 = Ch i S | , Cl). The practical point to consider was the freedom of the 
material from empyreumatic oils ; and the great improvements in wood-spirit might be 
said to have removed any difficulties on this score. If chloroform were made from pure 
methylic alcohol, there ought to be no distinction between it and that made from spirit 
of wine. . . 
Mr. Brady remarked that all the chloroform used in the hospitals in Edinburgh was 
made from methylated spirit. 
ON ESCIiWEGE’S PATENT WOOD NAPHTHA, AND ITS USES 
IN THE ARTS AND MANUFACTURES. 
BY MR. JOHN TUCK. 
In a paper published in the ‘ Pharmaceutical Journal ’ for January, 1863, I 
drew the attention of pharmaceutists to what was at that time a new and re¬ 
markable spirit patented in this country, and known as “ Patent Pure Wood 
Spirit,” or “ Patent Pure Wood Naphtha,” samples of which were shown at 
the late International Exhibition. 
* Mr. Tuck thinks aldehyde might interfere. To remove it he would first distil the liquid 
with caustic potash. 
