96 TEE ANALYST. CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editors of THE ANALYST. SIRS,-I am sorry to see that an allusion to raspberry-jam in my paper on Vinegar, recently read before the Society of Public Analysts, should have been misconstrued by Messrs. Allen and Hehner. My argument was, that where an identical result can be obtained by alternative methods, i t is not the duty of the analyst to go behind the result. As my thoughts have been previously misunderstood, perhaps I had better add that I don’t look for the conversion of turnips into raspberries ; but if it were possible, I should consider the author of the process a public benefactor rather than a dishonest manufacturer.-Yours faithfully, Stourport, February 21, 1894. EDWARD COLLENS. To the Editors of THE *kNALYST. DEAR SIRS,-A sentence has, through a printer’s error. crept into our paper on “The Leffmann-Beam Method,” ANALYST, this volume, p. 68, lines 13 and 14 from bottom. It was not in the original paper, but formed portions of a Eentence on the wrapper used to keep the paper clean ; the sentence being incomplete, was not sense as it stood, and the printer made an effort to form readable English by putting in an “ is” where we had written “as.” This, though making the sentence read well, entirely altered its meaning, and seemingly commits us to a direct attack on the Babcock method. As will be seen in the previous portion of the paper, we have studiously avoided any reference to the Babcock process, which has not had for its object the elucidation of conditions of the Leffmann-Beam metbod.-Yours truly, H. DROOP RICHMOND. L. K. BOSELEY. Bayswater, March 28, 1894.