Basilima, Schizonotus, Sorbaria [editorial]

John Hendley Barnhart
1901 Botanical Gazette  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact BOTANICAL GAZETTE [DECEMBER " gram-equival. per 1.," that, in chemical equivalent quantities of H2SO4 and of HC1, there are twice as many H ions in the H2 SO4 as there are in the HC1. Dr. True clearly regarded this as a gram-molecule per liter solution, so my reference to this point is not without good ground. Since Heald referred to the whole paper of Kahlenberg and True, and since several dibasic salts are there7 listed "gram-molecule per liter," my general reference is abundantly warranted. An illustration will make clear one misconception. Dr. Kahlenberg states that gram-molecule and gram-equivalent solutions of KHSO4 are the same. I hold they are not. In a gram-equivalent per liter solution of KHSO4 there is one-half gram of H. Dr. Kahlenberg's position is that there is one gram of H. If I misinterpret this substance I am in good company. (See definition gram-equivalent and references to Talbot, Mohr, Sutton, Fresenius, p. 230.) As to dissolving substances in so much water or in so much solution, I may say that I anm surprised at Dr. Kahlenberg's defending, in any case, the former method. My paper was not written as a criticism of Kahlenberg and True, as he seems to think, though their work was freely drawn upon for illustration.-JAMES B. DANDENO, Normal and Hzgh School, St. Louis, Mo. 7 BOT. GAZ. 22: 96. (CUSO4, etC.)