292 
TEST FOR METHYLIC ALCOHOL. 
years and a half have engaged my attention, and taken me from home practice, 
etc. I am, etc., Thos. Stowell, Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, 
England.” 
In quoting “ Thos. S to well's ” evidence, the ‘Medical Times and Gazette’ 
states that he showed superior knowledge and said, “ we have better remedies 
to produce the desired effect ” (or to that purpose). Now although Mr. 
Stowell is a M.R.C.S., the we here means the “ Eclectics,” for Mr. Stowell 
practises as such. 
Trusting that you will insert the above remarks in your next issue, and that 
your readers will excuse any slight errors, as I have not the papers before me, 
I remain, yours obediently, 
C. Berry, Chemist. 
Brighton , 41, Elm Grove, Oct. 18. 
TEST FOR METIITLIC ALCOHOL. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—My attention has been called to the abstract of a paper by Mr. John 
Tuck, on “A Test for Methylic Alcohol in the presence of Jd thy lie Alcohol ,” 
which appeared in your report of the proceedings of the Pharmaceutical Con¬ 
ference held at Bath. As the paper referred to seems to have contained some 
singular omissions, I trust you will give me the opportunity of correcting 
them, since they affect me personally to some extent. 
I was not a little surprised to find that the process of Mr/Tuck for de¬ 
tecting “ Methylic Alcohol”* is essentially, and in fact, the same as that which 
I proposed and fully published early last year, for the detection of “ wood 
spirit ;”f but Mr. Tuck appears to be utterly oblivious of my previous inves¬ 
tigation, or has perhaps forgotten to mention the source of his inspiration, 
llow the former could have been the case I am at a loss to conceive, as my 
paper was fully published during the year in the * Pharmaceutical Journal ’ 
and ‘Chemical News,’ in addition to other notices in many British and foreign 
scientific periodicals. 
In but one unimportant point does Mr. Tuck’s method differ from mine, and 
that difference consists in the employment of an alkaline solution of double 
iodide of potassium and mercury, instead of dilute solution of bichloride of mer¬ 
cury, with subsequent addition of caustic potash as proposed by me. The differ¬ 
ence, then, exists only in name but not in fact, as the result is the same in both 
cases. Mr. Tuck has even gone further, and explicitly stated that the reac¬ 
tion of wood spirit with the mercurial salt “ he has found ” to be due to the 
presence of acetone ,—a fact likewise dwelt on in my paper. So far as I can 
glean from your abstract, the same want of originality holds throughout the 
details of Mr. Tuck’s method. I believe therefore that I am warranted in 
claiming Mr. Tuck’s discovery (?) of a test for wood spirit as my own. 
Before concluding, permit me to observe, in reference to the remarks of Mr. 
Reynolds, of Leeds, on my test for methylated spirits, that without claiming 
absolute immunity from error for it, yet if used as described in my paper its 
indications will be found much more reliable than Mr. Reynolds supposed, 
since I only rely on its evidence when three facts have been established, viz. 
1st, the re-solution of the oxide of mercury by excess of potash in the pre¬ 
sence of the suspected spirit; 2nd, the production of a yellowish-white pre¬ 
cipitate on long-continued boiling of the alkaline solution ; and, 3rd, the for¬ 
mation of a similar precipitate on supersaturating the excess of potash with 
* Tlie author states that the react ion is clue to acetone ! ! 
f The term “wood spirit” is used throughout my paper in its ordinary generic sense. 
