phosphorus in steel can be advantageously modified in the interests of greater accuracy; and also, although not yet rigorously demonstrated, there are strong indications that molybdic acid (MoO), is always reduced by zinc to Mo,O,, and that the more complex formulas, Mo,,O,,, Mo,,O,,, etc., so commonly given as representing this reduction, simply mean that the conditions under which these formulæ were obtained, permitted the reoxidation of the reduced solution to the extent indicated.

24

There is another phase of this question we are discussing, "The Dignity of Analytical Work," which will perhaps bear a few words. It seems to be universally conceded that the brain that plans and guides is worthy of more honor than the hand that executes; the general deserves more than the private soldier; the architect, than the builder; the investigator who plans the work, than the chemist who makes the analyses. Few will object to such a distribution of rewards as this, and certainly no one will claim that a chemist who, machine-like, simply follows directions, without thought or interest in the matter, can fairly claim recognition for anything more, perhaps, than manipulative skill and honesty. But, on the other hand, is it fair to say that such analysts can truly be called analytical chemists? Does not the genuine analytical chemist embody within himself, not only the capacity of brain to wisely plan his method of attack, to conceive which one of the possible reactions in the case it will be best to employ, but also the requisite manipulative skill, to carry out the line of action decided upon? To my mind, these two things, viz., the brain power necessary to plan the work, together with the continual activity of the brain while the work is going on, and the skilled and trained hand requisite to do the work, are necessarily coexistent at the same time in the good analytical chemist, and woe be that chemist who tries to put them asunder. The analyst whom chance or the exigencies of earning his livelihood have thrown into a situation, where day after day he must, for a time at least, do the same thing over and over again, and who does not, even in this situation, use his brain constantly, does not each time he adds a reagent think what is going on in the beaker, does not each time he washes a precipitate think what he is washing out, does not every time he makes a weight take a genuine interest in the result, and even the

hundredth time that he makes the same determination, is not on the lookout for some flaw in the method he is using, or some possible new reaction in connection with it, such an analyst I say, will stand a good chance to remain a routine chemist all his life.

On the other hand, what shall we say of those chemists who plan out a line of investigation, and are content not to make the necessary analyses themselves? We are quite well aware that at the present time this is a very common method of making investigations, and we can, of course, understand that pressure of other duties may make it impossible to pursue investigations in any other way. But we cannot regard this state of affairs as, to say the least, anything less than unfortunate. If we may trust our own experience, the time spent in making the analyses required by one line of attack on a stubborn problem is most valuable, in the opportunity which it affords for carrying the problem in mind, and planning out other lines, in case the one in hand does not succeed. Moreover, still more valuable is it to make the analyses yourself, in that while doing so, you so frequently get suggestions from the work that are the very ones upon which final success depends. I wish there was time to illustrate this point as its importance deserves, but the history of chemistry and your own experience will have to furnish them to you. To our minds it is hard to overestimate the importance, especially to a young investigator, of his doing his own analytical work for himself. If we read rightly, this was the almost universal habit of the old masters of our science, and we greatly fear that those chemists, who from choice delegate their analytical work, will find after years of such delegation, that their reward of successful investigations is very small.

A single thought farther. At the present time so much applied chemistry is either based on analytical work, or has analytical work as an almost essential constituent of its existence, that in a paper discussing analytical work, a few words. may not be amiss, on the relations between pure and applied chemistry. Without wishing to touch in the slightest degree on mooted or disputed questions, it may not be unfair to say, that while the applied chemist does truly, as the name indicates, in the mass of his work, utilize or apply the discoveries of others,

to useful effect, it does not at all follow, that in the field of applied chemistry, no discoveries yet remain to be made. It is certainly not too much to say that no thoughtful chemist has ever worked for any length of time in any field of applied chemistry, without finding himself surrounded with problems involving new and unknown reactions, with problems, am I not safe in saying, requiring for their solution, as good appliances, as deep study, and as keen thought, as any that occupy the minds of the pure chemists. These problems continually force themselves upon him, and his only regret in the matter is, that the time at his disposal does not permit him to solve them as fast as they arise. A prominent feature of these applied chemistry problems, remains to be mentioned; viz., they generally have immediate useful applications, as soon as they are solved. The applied chemist usually makes an excursion into the unknown, because some difficulty has arisen in the course of his regular work, or because some new, more rapid, or more economical method of accomplishing results, is desired. He may succeed in finding a new reaction, or in utilizing an old one, as the basis of a successful commercial process, or in modifying a manufacturing method in the interests of both economy and speed. But whatever his work, the immediate useful application of the information he secures, is both his stimulus and guide. He may not be able from lack of time to follow his work up, and find the complete relations of the facts ascertained to the other branches of chemistry, but this is his misfortune rather than his fault, and this condition of affairs, viz., being unable to follow out to completion, lines of research one started on, is, if we understand the matter rightly, not characteristic of the applied chemist alone. This much being said, let us ask in what respects the pure chemists resemble or differ from those who work in the field of applied chemistry. They certainly are alike in this, that neither of them can devote his whole time to original work. Both must devote no small portion of their energy to other lines than making investigations. There may have been a time in the history of chemistry when investigators were so fortunately situated, that they could devote their whole time and energy to finding out new truth, and giving their results to the world. All honor to such investigators. Moreover, we all know that

occasionally an appropriation of funds or an endowment is made for research in some special field. But truly would it not be too much to say, that the work of any large percentage of the pure chemists of to-day, is the result of such fortunate circumstances? Furthermore the pure and applied chemists are alike in that in their original work, both are seeking for the truth, and if they are successful, both are adding to the sum of human knowledge. They differ, as it seems to me, principally in this First, the researches of the applied chemists being largely made in the interests of corporations or manufacturing establishments, the results of these investigations, in many cases, are not at once available to the world, except in so far as they lead to diminished cost of production. Those who have paid for these researches, naturally feel that they should be allowed a period of time at least, to recoup themselves for their expenditures and so they protect themselves either by patents or secrecy. But this is only a knowledge of the truth deferred. Sooner or later the results of the investigations of all applied chemists, are added to the great body of accumulated chemical knowledge. The pure chemist, on the other hand, at once gives the results of his investigations to the world, and is quite content if the publication of his researches shall bring him as his reward, a modicum of appreciation from his fellows. Second, in their original work, the pure chemists differ from the applied chemists in the ulterior purpose for which the investigation is undertaken. As has already been stated, the applied chemist usually undertakes an investigation, tries to find new truth with the avowed purpose of at once utilizing this truth as soon as it is found. Not so the pure chemists. The problems which they attack and solve so successfully, have no necessary relation to subsequent utility. The truth which they discover, and put on record, may be found to be useful at some time, but its possible immediate utility or non-utility is not taken into consideration by the pure chemist, either in his choice of a subject for investigation, or in the prosecution of his work. The truth for the truth's own sake, is his motto and guiding star.

If we have diagnosed the case correctly, then the principal differences between the pure and applied chemist are, that the latter withholds the results of his work from

the world for a period of time, while the former gives his at once, and that the latter is, in his original work, seeking for truth that is at once useful as soon as it is worked out, while the former neither knows nor cares whether the truth that he discovers, is either now or at any future time turned to practical or useful effect. Let me not be misunderstood. I am not attempting to belittle in any sense the work of the pure chemists. They are worthy of all honor and respect. But on the other hand, I am not at all willing to have the work of the applied chemists made light of or treated as though it were in an inferior field. To my mind there is no occasion for either to belittle the work of the other. The field of chemistry is so broad, the amount of unoccupied ground in every branch of the science is so great, that there is neither time nor energy for struggling as to who is greatest or who is least, but in whatever line a man's tastes, opportunities, or the force of circumstances may lead him, whether as a pure or an applied chemist, whether organic or inorganic, whether theoretical, physical, or agricultural, whether analytical or synthetic, provided in his mind at all times, the love of the truth is above all, and honest work is being done, he is worthy of recognition, honor, and respect.

ALKYL BISMUTH IODIDES AND BISMUTH IODIDES OF VEGETABLE BASES.'

ΤΗ

BY ALBERT B. PRESCOTT.

Received November 20, 1897.

HE common alkyl ammonium iodides, with solutions of the bismuth salts, give bright-colored precipitates. As formed by quaternary methyl or ethyl ammonium iodides, the color is orange-yellow in most cases, usually lighter when obtained with bismuth chloride, and darker when obtained with bismuth nitrate. When fully formed by excess of the organic iodide, in bismuth solution not strongly acid, the precipitation is amorphous and so nearly complete that when the filtrate from a test-tube portion is evaporated to dryness and the residue ignited and treated with solvent acid, hydrogen sulphide fails to

1 Read before the American Pharmaceutical Association, in the report of a special committee, at Minnetonka Lake, August, 1897, and to be published in the Association Proceedings for this year.