228 
EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
ployed an apparatus composed of a large glass shade, resting 
upon a pan formed of a plate, with two concentric cylinders 
arising from it; the edge of the glass shade passed between the 
two cylinders, and the intervening space was filled up with 
mercury. The soil employed was burnt, exhausted of soluble 
matter, ignited, and allowed to cool over sulphuric acid; it 
was then placed in porous pots. The air supplied to the plants 
was washed with sulphuric acid and carbonate of soda before it 
was allowed to enter the glass shade. It was forced through 
the apparatus instead of being drawn through by an aspirator, 
which was the plan adopted by former experimenters—this 
method of procedure preventing any errors being produced by 
leaks. The seeds which were allowed to germinate in this 
apparatus grew up to a certain extent, and, in fact, showed a 
curious power of maintaining their existence—new parts, as 
they grew absorbing nitrogenous matter from old, decaying 
parts. Leguminous plants, however, died almost as soon as 
they, had germinated, not being able to sustain their exist¬ 
ence without an additional supply of combined nitrogen. In 
some of the experiments nitrogenous matter was supplied to 
the plant until it had attained some growth, but in no case 
did any increase in the amount of the combined nitrogen, 
beyond that supplied, and that originally existing in the 
seed, take place; in fact, when additional combined nitrogen 
had been supplied there was a loss of nitrogen, a portion of it 
being carried off as ammonia by the current of air passing 
through the apparatus. TVith respect to a loss of nitrogen 
taking place from the production of free nitrogen by the 
decay of those portions of the plants that were dead, by 
which an error would be introduced, they considered that, 
although under certain circumstances such might be the 
case, as, for instance, by the decay of dead leaves, &c., still 
under the circumstances of the experiments mentioned no 
loss of this kind took place. 
At the close of the reading of the paper. Dr. Frankland 
said he considered that, with respect to the opposite result 
arrived at by M. Ville, it was partly to be attributed to his 
apparatus, which was probably not air-tight, while the authors 
of the present paper had taken care to guard against a simi¬ 
lar inaccuracy.^’ 
