Abstract
IN the letter which he has addressed to you on this subject, it seems to me that Dr. Turpin has not succeeded in justifying his position. Whether your reviewer is or is not acquainted with all that has been written on the subject, is not a matter of great importance, though reference to the Proceedings of the Birmingham Philosophical Society (vii. part ii. p. 264) will be sufficient to show that the views of Wislicenus and Wunderlich have not been overlooked. The question is whether the writer of a text-book bearing on its title-page the word “Elementary,” is justified in presenting without preface, and almost without explanation, a bald statement such as that complained of, which represents not the deliberate conclusions of the majority, or even of a considerable body of chemists, but speculations still in the earliest stage of evolution. (Wislicenus himself says, in reference to his own views, “Ich lege ihnen keineswegs den Werth einer wissenschaftlichen Ueberzeugung bei und möchte nicht auf ihnen ‘festgenagelt’ werden.” Ber. xxi. 584.) I hope and believe that this sort of thing is not commonly taught to beginners in organic chemistry, and it may be as well for Dr. Turpin and his pupils to note that tetrahedral carbon is not referred to in any way in the syllabus of the first stage of organic chemistry in the Directory of the Science and Art Department.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
T., W. The Tetrahedral Carbon Atom. Nature 50, 596 (1894). https://doi.org/10.1038/050596c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/050596c0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.