Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:50:22.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

I. Account of a Mineral from Strontian, and of a peculiar Species of Earth which it contains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2013

Thomas Charles Hope
Affiliation:
Professor of Medicine in the University of Glasgow, and Physician to the Glasgow Royal Infirmary.

Extract

The mineral, of which I have the honour to lay an account before the Society, was brought to Edinburgh in considerable quantity about six years ago by a dealer in fossils, though indeed it had found its way, long before this period, into one or two collections.

By some it was mistaken for fluor. Its great specific gravity, its fibrous appearance, and its quality of forming an insoluble substance with sulphuric acid, made it generally be received as the native carbonate of barytes. From a few experiments, I was led at that time to entertain some doubt of its being any form of barytes ; and for several years, when I filled the chemical chair in the University of Glasgow, I used, when I exhibited the mineral itself, to mention in my lectures such of its properties as I had discovered, and which indicated that it did not belong to the barytic genus.

Type
Papers Read Before the Society
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1798

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 19 note * The beautiful experiment with the muriate was first mentioned to me in the 1787, by an ingenious gentleman, Mr Ash, who was then studying physic at Edinburgh.

page 21 note * Ann. de Chem. t. 10. p. 188.

page 22 note * I have, since this paper was read, discovered that the difference of solubility of barytes in hot and in cold water is fully as remarkable as that of Strontites. This mark of distinction consequently must be rejected.

page 24 note * Vide note to 53.