The present communication may be viewed as the continuation of an Essay on the Composition of the Chloride of Barium, which was honoured with a place in the Philosophical Transactions for the year 1829. In resuming the subject after such a long interval, I feel it right to apologize to the Society for the unfinished state in which that Essay has hitherto been left,—an omission far from voluntary, and entirely due to circumstances not subject to my own controul. In one point of view, however, the delay has been advantageous: it has afforded an opportunity to chemists to verify or correct the results contained in my first Essay, and has enabled me to repeat and extend my researches. The object which I proposed to myself in commencing the present inquiry, was to re-examine some of those estimates which chemists have occasion to use continually as elements in their calculations, and to confide in as the foundation of their doctrines. With this view I undertook to determine the relative accuracy of the atomic weights which the British and Continental chemists respectively employ; and several circumstances induced me to begin by analysing the chloride of barium. Dr. Thomson, on whose experiments the British chemists relied, had obtained so many of his results by means of the chloride of barium, that any material error in the constitution of that compound would necessarily vitiate a large part of his table of equivalents; and if, on the other hand, the estimate of Dr. Thomson proved to be correct, an important error would be chargeable against Berzelius, whose numbers are very generally adopted on the Continent. The result of the inquiry is now well known: the source of fallacy, pointed out in my first communication, has been admitted by Dr. Thomson in the new edition of his System of Chemistry, and he has accordingly changed the equivalent of barium from 70 to 68. The inevitable consequence of this change must be apparent to every one who is acquainted with the method of analysis so frequently resorted to by Dr. Thomson. Many of the experiments described in his First Principles of Chemistry are now at irreconcilable variance with each other, and, if relied upon at all, subvert the conclusions which they once appeared to establish. Nor can those parts of his work which are not subject to this criticism be safely applied to the purposes of science. His view, for instance, of the composition of the compounds of oxygen with phosphorus, arsenic, and antimony, has been lately abandoned by himself; and in the course of the present Essay I shall have occasion to prove, that the atomic weights which he has employed for silver and chlorine are likewise inadmissible. His analysis of sulphate of zinc, which was made, to use Dr. Thomson’s own words, “the foundation on which he endeavoured to rear the whole subsequent doctrine of the atomic weight of bodies,” is peculiarly objectionable. Besides being vitiated by his error in the equivalent of barium, the oxide of zinc was determined by a method which involved an error in principle, and was in practice so complex as to be unfit for the extremely important object which it was intended to serve.
On a pair of ciliated grooves in the brain of the ammocœte apparently serving to promote the circulation of the fluid in the brain-cavity
