These are instances of a very large class of apparent gross discrepancies between the requirements of the Avogadro-van 't Hoff principle and the generally accepted molecular weights of common compounds. There are three ways, in particular, in which one might be inclined to regard such results: in the first place, one might be tempted to consider that van 't Hoff's extension of Avogadro's hypothesis to solutions is justified in a considerable number of cases, but not as a ‹universal› expression, applicable to ‹all› dilute solutions. This seems, indeed, to have been van 't Hoff's own attitude originally. Such a view, since it does not throw new light on the matter, but simply shelves the question of the source of the discrepancy, would be tenable only after all other explanations had been found unsatisfactory. In the second place, we might be inclined to consider whether a molecule like hydrogen chloride is not dissociated in aqueous solution into two smaller molecules, ‹h›‹cl›, in which hydrogen and chlorine would appear as atoms with the weights ‹h› = 0.5 and ‹cl› = 17.75, which are half as large as the atomic weights determined from a study of volatile compounds of hydrogen and chlorine. If we remember that our atomic weights are confessedly maximum weights, and not minimum weights—although they are almost certainly also the true atomic weights—such a view would be, at least, worthy of some consideration. But, in the first place, it would be extraordinary that we should never have found, in the thousands of [p039] hydrogen derivatives that have been investigated, any compound, the molecule of which, in the gaseous condition, contained a ‹single› such atom of hydrogen, with the weight 0.5, or an ‹uneven› multiple of it: that only ‹even› multiples or pairs ‹h›_{2}, corresponding to the atom H, should always have been found. In the second place, such an explanation of the results of the molecular weight determinations in aqueous solutions given above, would soon lead to difficulties, which make the view altogether untenable. For instance, the molecule of zinc chloride, according to the data given, would have to break down into three molecules and, if these were of uniform composition, we would have to assume chlorine atoms two-thirds or one-third as large as Cl. Since a moment ago we had to assume chlorine atoms one-half as large as Cl, we would have to conclude that the atomic weight of chlorine could be, at most, Cl / 6, which is the largest common divisor of Cl / 2 and Cl / 3. No chemist would seriously consider an atomic weight for chlorine one-sixth as large as the accepted weight, for that would mean that, in all the chlorine compounds investigated in the condition of gases, we have always at least six such atoms occurring together, and otherwise always multiples of six. Consequently such an interpretation of the so-called "abnormal" behavior of solutions of hydrogen chloride, sodium and zinc chlorides, etc., although at