The method adopted by the committee has been selected only after the most careful consideration of other methods, such as the dry extraction method and the wet method making use of the separatory funnel. At first consideration the dry extraction process would seem to offer the best basis for an unsaponifiable matter method, but in practice it has been found absolutely impossible for different analysts to obtain agreeing results when using any of the dry extraction methods proposed. Therefore, this method had to be abandoned after numerous trials, although several members of the committee strongly favored it in the beginning. IODINE NUMBER--The iodine number adopted by the committee is that determined by the well-known Wijs method. This method was adopted after careful comparison with the Hanus and Huebl methods. The Huebl method was eliminated from consideration almost at the beginning of the committee's work for the reason that the time required for complete absorption of the iodine is unnecessarily long and, in fact, even after absorption has gone on over night, it is apparently not complete. In the case of the Hanus and Wijs methods complete absorption takes place in from 15 minutes to an hour, depending on conditions. Formerly, many chemists thought the Hanus solution rather easier to prepare than the Wijs solution, but the experience of the committee was that the Wijs solution was no more difficult to prepare than the Hanus. Furthermore, absorption of iodine from the Wijs solution appeared to take place with greater promptness and certainty than from the Hanus and was complete in a shorter time. Results by the Wijs method were also in better agreement in the case of oils showing high iodine absorption than with the Hanus solution and showed a slightly higher iodine absorption for the same length of time. However, the difference was not great. The committee investigated the question of substitution since it has been suggested that in case of the Wijs solution substitution of iodine in the organic molecule might occur, and found no evidence of this in the time required for the determination, namely, 1/2 hr., or even for a somewhat longer period. One member of the committee felt that it was not desirable to introduce the Wijs method into these standard methods since the Hanus method was already standardized by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, but the committee felt that it must follow the principle established at the commencement of its work, namely, that of adopting the method which appeared to be the best from all standpoints, taking into consideration accuracy, convenience, simplicity, time, expense, etc., without allowing precedent to have the deciding vote.