Page:Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Vol 1.djvu/95

Rh He then states two extraordinary and unforeseen productions of this acid: one was during an analysis of manachanite from Botany Bay, in which oxygen had passed from oxide of titanium into a com- bination of potash with mnriatic acid, and formed hyperoxygenized mudate of potash; and the other was in distilling nitro-muriatic acid upon platina. He tried the action of manganese in the same manner as the titanium, but could not succeed; nor did nitric acid convert oxygenized into hyperoxygenized muriatic acid.

Mr. Chenevix states that Mr. Berthollet had proposed to consider muriatic acid as the radical of the other two, and says that oxygenized muriatic acid corresponds with nitrous and sulphureons acids, and hyperoxygenized muriatic acid with nitric and sulphuric.

Our author states the arguments in favour of the old and the new mode of denomination; and upon the consideration that many bodies called acids have not been proved to contain oxygen, and that of some the contrary has been demonsirated, he seems inclined to think that an impartial hearing of both sides of the question must, in the present state of chemical knowledge, decide in favour of

Muriatic radical, or some'] word of the same import, L

Muriattms acid,

rMuriatlc acid ;

instead of< Oxygenized muriatic acid;

Maﬁatic acid, I Hyperoxygenized munatic

J acid.

Experiments and Observations on certain Stony and Metalline Substances, which at diferent Times are said to have fallen on the Earth; also on various Kinds of native I ran. By Edward Howard, Esq. F.R.S'. Read February 25, 1802. [Phil. Trans. 1802, p. 168.]

In considering the copious contents of this paper, we shall ﬁnd it convenient to distribute them under the four following heads: 1. The historical part; 2. The descriptive part; 3. The analytical part; and 4. General observations on the subject, and a comparison of these stones with other substances which seem to bear some afﬁnity to them.

And, First, as to the historical part. Waving all former accounts, both of the ancients and moderns, of stones which, under the names of Ceraunia, Bt‘etilia, Ombria, Brontia, Belemnitae, 81.0. were supposed to have fallen from heaven, of which accounts most are disproved, and others are involved in inexplicable obscurity, we may lay some stress on the instances adduced by Mr. King, in his late tract “con- cerning stones which are said to have fallen from the clouds;” and also on the evidence of the Abbe Bachelay, who laid before the French Royal Academy a stone, which he asserted had been found on the 13th of September, 1768, still hot, by persons who saw it fall; and that of Professor Barthold, who analysed and described a stone found near Ensisheim in Upper Alsace, under the unqualiﬁed name of Pierre de Tonnere. These observations and experiments of the Abbé and