It is possible to make out a rather weak case that the tanning sol is not chromium hydrate at all, but a basic salt of chrome also in colloidal solution, and to contend that this salt, like most substances, forms a negative sol, but in practice not negative enough, hence the desirability of alkali, divalent anions, etc. From this point of view the analogy with vegetable tannage becomes more complete and the stabilizing effect of the soda salts of organic acids becomes easy to understand. It is highly probable that the electrical properties of the chrome sol need closer investigation on account of the complexity due to the prominent effect of multivalent ions. It is desirable to bear in mind the remarkable phenomenon observed by Burton (_Phil. Mag._, 1905, vi, =12=, 472), who added various concentrations of aluminium sulphate to a silver sol (negative). He observed (1) a zone of non-precipitation due to protection; (2) a zone of precipitation due to the trivalent kation; (3) a second zone of non-precipitation due to protection after the sol has passed through the isoelectric point and become a positive sol; (4) a second zone of precipitation due to the precipitating effect of the anion on the now positive sol. It seems to the writer that similar phenomena may possibly occur in chrome tanning, for whatever the sol actually is, it is not far from the isoelectric point. A few observations on the vegetable-chrome combination tannages will not be out of place at this stage. Wilson refers to the well-known practical fact that chrome leather can take up about as much vegetable tan as if it were unchromed pelt, and considers this evidence that the two tannages are of fundamentally different nature. "In mineral-tanned leathers the metal is combined with carboxyl groups, while in vegetable-tanned leather the tannin is combined with the amino groups. This strongly suggests the possibility that the two methods of tanning are to some extent independent of one another, and that a piece of leather tanned by one method may remain as capable of being tanned by the other method as though it were still raw pelt" (_Collegium_ (London), 1917, 110-111). To the writer, however, it seems that the facts are evidence for the contrary proposition, that the tannages are fundamentally of the same nature. On the adsorption theory, one would expect chrome leather to adsorb as much tan as pelt; the readily adsorbable tan is the same, and the chrome leather is an adsorbent of very much the same order of specific surface as pelt. The adsorption theory would find it difficult to account for chrome leather not adsorbing as much tan as pelt. It is quite conceivable that a chrome leather could adsorb more tan than pelt, owing to the more complete isolation of the fibrils by the chrome tannage and to their being coated over by a more adsorbent gel. Adsorption is often deliberately increased by a preparatory adsorption. Thus sumach-tanned goatskins are wet back