BULLETIN OF THE BUSSEY INSTITUTION. 247 
29. J. Schroeder, Steeckhardt’s Chemische Ackersmann, 1873, 19. 198. 
30. Chevandier, Comptes Rendus, 1847, 24. 269. 
31. Chevandier, Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 1844, pp. 137-148. 
32. Handtke, Steckhardt’s Chemische Ackersmann, 1863. 9, 249. 
33. Wunder, Die landwirthschaftlichen Versuchs-Stationen, 1864, 6. 10. 
34. Hertwig, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1843, 46. 102. 
35. Heyer, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1852, 82. 185. 
36. Béttinger, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1844, 50+ 407. 
37. Witting, Liebig and Kopp’s Jahresbericht, 4, 712. 
38. Wittstein, Liebig and Kopp’s Jahresbericht, 15. 510. 
39. Krutsch, Steeckhardt’s Chemische Ackersmann, 1863, 9. 22. 
40. Cited by Hohenstein, A.,in his Die Pottaschen-Fabrikation, Wien, 1856, p. 18, e¢ seq. 
[I have copied nothing from this work excepting certain results which purport to 
depend upon independent observations. It will be noticed, however, that many of 
the figures taken from Hohenstein are remarkably similar to those of v. Werneck.] 
41. Zoller, Die landwirthschaftlichen Versuchs-Stationen, 1864, 6. 231. 
42. FE. Schulze, in his Chemie fiir Landwirthe, Leipzig, 1853, 2. pp. 75, 80. 
43. Souchay, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1845, 54, 348. 
44. Brand! and Rackowiecki, Liebig and Kopp’s Jahresbericht, 17. 607. 
45. De Saussure, in his Recherches Chimiques, Paris, 1804: 
46. Schtitze, cited in Stoeckhardt’s Chemische Ackersmann, 1873, 19. 200. 
47. Engelmann, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1845, 54, 342. 
48. Levi, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1844, 50. 423. 
49. Vogel, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1844, 51. pp. 140-143. 
50. Wrightson, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1845, 54. 341. 
51. Sacc, Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 1849, 25, 224. 
52. Experiments of the Leipzig ékonomische Gesellschaft, cited by (40) Hohenstein, p. 33. 
53. Régie [French Administration of powder and saltpetre], cited by Pertuis, Annales de 
Chimie, 1797, 19. 162. 
54. Pertuis’s own observations, Annales de Chimie, 1797, 19. 162. According to Pertuis, 
his woods were “‘ burnt with great care.” 
55. Wolff, Journal fiir praktische Chemie, 1848, 44. 385. 
56. Staffel, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1850, 76. 379; and further, Liebig and 
Kopp’s Jahresbericht, 3. p. 661 and Table D. [The woods examined by Staffel were 
carbonized, after H. Rose, and the ashes seem to have been carefully analyzed. ] 
57. L. Hoffmann, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 1845, 56. 125. 
58. Herapath, Journal London Chemical Society, 1849, 1. pp. 104-115. 
59. Uhden, cited by (40) Hohenstein, p. 34. 
60. Sprengel, Erdmann’s Journ. tech. und ok. Chemie, 1830, 7. 267; and 8, pp. 11 and 269, 
61. Stceckhardt, in his Chemische Ackersmann, 1866, 12. 51. 
It is interesting to recall the fact that, nearly a hundred years ago, the 
French Administration of Powder and Saltpetre * of those days, reported 
as the result of their experiments upon four kinds of wood, —viz., oak, 
beech, hornbeam, and aspen, — that the mean product of ash was 1.08%, 
and the amount of crude potashes in the ash 11.59%. 
Much more recently, another French observer, Chevandier,t has re- 
ported as the result of a very large number of experiments (524 in all), 
made expressly for the purpose of obtaining trustworthy data, that the 
average yield of ashes from nine kinds of wood (viz., willow, aspen, oak, 
* Cited by Pertuis, ‘“‘ Annales de Chimie,” 1797, 19. 162. According to 
Kirwan, the woods in question were “burnt in a clean chimney and open 
fire.” 
t “ Comptes Rendus,” 1847, 24. pp. 269, 274. 
