114 REFUTATION OF THE SALT RADICAL THEORY, 
to which he has resorted, in speaking of the opinions of 
Bonsdorflf. 
31. If this doctrine, as it has been stated, is to prevail, I 
do not perceive how it is to be prevented from claiming an 
inconvenient extension. The hydrates, as well as the sul- 
phates, must have pretensions to contain salt radicals. 
Hence in the hydrated alkalies and alkaline earths, there 
would be a compound radical, consisting of hydrogen, with 
two atoms of oxygen, hydroxion, and these compounds 
would be hydroxionides; nor can I conceive that the haloid 
compounds, erroneously called double salts, but more coi> 
rectly considered as single salts, can be exempted. 
32. Between the reaction of fluoboric acid with fluobases, 
and sulphuric acid with oxybases, is there not a great re- 
semblance? 
33. I am unable to understand how, if the existence of 
salt radicals in oxysalts is inferred, the other salts of the 
amphigen class can be exempted from a corresponding in- 
ference. But if the existence of salt radicals in the double 
sulphides be admitted, can it be consistently denied that 
they exist also in double chlorides, iodides, &c? Is there 
not the greatest analogy between the habitudes of sulphur, 
selenium, and tellurium, with metals, and those of the halo- 
gen bodies, so called? 
34. Would not the modification of the etherial oxysalts, 
to comport with the new hypothesis, be disadvantageous, 
both as respects our mental conception of those compounds, 
and the names which would be rendered appropriate? 
Would not the transfer of the oxygen from the etherial 
oxide to the acid, and the creation, thus, of new salt radicals 
for the organic acid salts, be objectionable; such as oxy- 
oxalion for oxalates, oxytartarion for tartrates, oxyacetion 
for acetates; while, for their compounds, we should have 
oxyoxalionides, oxytartarionides, oxyacetionides, &c? 
35. If sulphates are to be considered as oxysulphionides, 
by what names are we to designate the sulphites, hyposul- 
