6. Beaker elutriation requires no tedious boiling or preliminary treatment and with careful pestling of the sediments gives, we believe, as nearly as possible, a good separation of adhering particles and at every stage of the process carries with it, in the constant use of the microscope, the means of testing the accuracy of its work and of observing every visible peculiarity of the soil. It is not claimed that pestling may not easily go too far, but in any case a good judgment may be formed of its effects and of the extent to which it is desirable to carry it. 7. In beaker elutriation the flocculation of particles occasions little inconvenience and does not impair the accuracy of the results. =236. Comparison of the Osborne with the Schloesing Method.=—Schloesing’s method has been compared by Osborne[155] with the beaker method of elutriation with the following results: SCHLOESING’S METHOD. Per cent. Calcium carbonate 4.20 Sand 64.91 Clay 22.65 Humus none Loss on ignition 6.60 BY THE DIRECT BEAKER METHOD. Per cent. Above 0.25 millimeter diameter 1.02 0.25–0.05 millimeter diameter 0.76 0.05–0.01 millimeter diameter 20.95 Below 0.01 millimeter diameter 71.01 Loss on ignition 6.60 It is seen by the above that there is little agreement between the results of the two methods. With the prairie soil from Mercer County, Ill., the following results were obtained working on the original sample and the sand separated by the Schloesing process: SCHLOESING’S METHOD. Per cent. Calcium carbonate 0.88 Humus 1.57 Loss at 150° C. 4.42 Sand 82.86 Clay 7.86 ————— 97.59 BEAKER METHOD.