The sense of ‹smell› is rather more useful in qualitative analysis than that of taste or of touch. Hydrogen sulphide and ammonia, unless present in traces only, readily reveal themselves by their odor. Every chemist should be familiar with the faint but very characteristic odor of hydrocyanic acid,[1] which should instantly and automatically warn him of the presence of this potent poison. Owing to partial decomposition by the moisture and carbonic acid absorbed from the atmosphere, alkali cyanides also give this important warning signal. Tests based on the odors of compounds are particularly valuable in the field of organic chemistry, where the sense of smell is extensively used for qualitative purposes; for instance, the pleasant smell of acetic ester, and the nauseating odor of an organic arsenic derivative, cacodyl oxide, may be used with advantage in identifying acetic acid. But the evidence of touch, taste, and smell is, on the whole, only occasionally available in chemical analysis—almost all the tests employed are ‹visual› ones. A small proportion of these are ‹color› tests. The color of iodine vapor or of the solution of iodine in chloroform, the colors of metallic copper or gold, of copper salts in ammoniacal solutions, of sulphides, such as the orange sulphide of antimony (‹exps.›), may be mentioned as instances, in which a test of identity depends on the observation of some characteristic color. But the great majority of analytical tests depend on ‹observations of changes of state›; evidence consisting in the solution of solids, the formation of precipitates, the evolution of gases, forms the most important part of the observations, [p006] on which our conclusions are based. In organic chemistry, determinations of melting-points and of boiling-points, which are very commonly used for the qualitative identification of compounds, form further instances of the application, to qualitative purposes, of observations based on changes of state.