Dalton's Atomic Theory Research Articles

The Transition from Alchemical to Modern Chemical Symbolism: from Bergman and Guiton de Morveau to Hassenfratz and Adet, Higgins, Richter, Dalton, and Berzelius.

The alchemical concepts of chemical symbolism, nomenclature, and affinity underwent fundamental changes between the 1770s and the 1820s, roughly simultaneously with the Chemical Revolution (ca. 1772-89), i. e. the replacement of the phlogiston theory with Lavoisier's New Chemistry. Using the old, alchemical symbols, Bergman devised a system of formulas to describe virtually all known inorganic chemistry, and he influenced Guiton de Morveau's Mémoire sur les Dénominations Chimiques, and the subsequent Méthode de nomenclature. Hassenfratz and Adet devised a new artificial sign language which, however, was too complicated and unintuitive to gain widespread acceptance. Bergman refined the concept of affinity, but his belief in phlogiston rapidly made the system obsolete. Wenzel realized that the dissolution of metals in acids is not just a question of affinity but rather of concentration, and he and Berthollet separately formulated early versions of the Law of Mass Action thereby making attempts to quantify affinity redundant. Richter formulated a principle that became known as the Law of Equivalent Proportions, describing acid-base reactions and double decompositions of salts, but continuing to use Bergman-style alchemical formulas. Only John Dalton's atomic theory with little globules denoting atoms and their combination into molecules made a definite break with the alchemical symbols.

Dancing with Falsification: The Dynamic of Chemistry Atomistic Theories Across Centuries

This research aimed to explore the contribution of the falsification process to the progress of science in the field of atomic theory. The analysis focused on the history of atomic development and how this theory underwent a process of falsification. This research was qualitative research using a literature study with a narrative review method. The results showed that the development of a theory, including the theory of atoms, has undergone many improvements. Falsification is an essential aspect of scientific progress, especially in atomic theory, involving testing the theory through experimentation and observation to determine accuracy. In the development of atomic theory, falsification played a key role, as in Dalton's atomic theory. Although revolutionary, subsequent experiments revealed subatomic particles, resulting in the falsification of Dalton's ideas and the emergence of a more complex understanding of atomic structure. The evolution of atomic theory shows that scientific knowledge is dynamic, continuing to develop through falsification. New evidence continues to refine ideas, ensuring scientific knowledge accurately reflects the natural world. The scientific method emphasizes openness to falsification, stating that theories must be testable and can be replaced when significant evidence refutes the theory. This openness is the basis for scientific progress and a deeper understanding of the universe.

Atomic Theory and Multiple Combining Proportions: The Search for Whole Number Ratios

SummaryJohn Dalton's atomic theory, with its postulate of compound formation through atom-to-atom combination, brought a new perspective to weight relationships in chemical reactions. A presumed one-to-one combination of atoms A and B to form a simple compound AB allowed Dalton to construct his first table of relative atomic weights from literature analyses of appropriate binary compounds. For such simple binary compounds, the atomic theory had little advantages over affinity theory as an explanation of fixed proportions by weight. For ternary compounds of the form AB2, however, atomic theory made quantitative predictions that were not deducible from affinity theory. Atomic theory required that the weight of B in the compound AB2 be exactly twice that in the compound AB. Dalton, Thomas Thomson and William Hyde Wollaston all published within a few years of each other experimental data that claimed to give the predicted results with the required accuracy. There are nonetheless several experimental barriers to obtaining the desired integral multiple proportions. In this paper I will discuss replication experiments which demonstrate that only Wollaston's results are experimentally reliable. It is likely that such replicability explains why Wollaston's experiments were so influential.

Excerpt from Preface

Most men who have profoundly assisted the development of science have required four types of skills. First, the ability to recognize and to define important problems susceptible to scientific elucidation, and to define them clearly; that is, to see distant goals clearly and to formulate strategy. Second, the tactical ability to conceive and conduct experiments sufficiently limited in scope to be rigorous, but advancing science according to the general strategy. Third, the innovative ingenuity and technical skill needed for the actual conduct of elegant experiments. Fourth, the ability to see how the results of experiments contribute to understanding, and to use the results to guide the tactics of future experiments. Most scientists have one or two of these skills, but few have all four; most have one or more glaring deficiencies. There are hundreds of reports in the Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology which give evidence of clear distant goals and technical skill but which show inadequate tactics. There are dozens of reports in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (a younger journal) which show experimental skill and the ability to recognize results, but which fail to advance science appreciably because they cannot be seen to advance or modify understanding in the broader picture. The different types of skills can be added to a common pool in collaborative work between people. But when all the skills are present in an individual, they are mutually enhanced, so that the scientific potency of the individual is far greater than that of four people, each contributing one of the skills. Skinner has all four skills and in unusual measure. In the contemporary academic vernacular, he is very bright, good in the lab, good with his hands, and sharp: witness the theoretical papers of the thirties, the elegant experiments of The Behavior of Organisms, the cumulative recorder, and the recognition of the extraordinary properties of schedules of reinforcement. His contributions to science, moreover, reflect the multiplicative enhancement of these skills; the instrumental ingenuity which made the cumulative recorder enabled the explosive exploration of the properties of schedules, while the theoretical skills guided the thrust into a trajectory of great efficiency. Massive advances in science can affect society either by changing man's views of himself or by leading to substantive changes in his environment. The contributions of Copernicus and Darwin profoundly affected society through their philosophical implications, though they have made little difference to the contents of one's house or how one does things. Dalton's atomic theory and Faraday's electromagnetism had little influence on the nineteenth century establishment, although they led, through chemistry and electricity, to profound changes in man's surroundings. The work of a few people has affected society both ways; Pasteur's germs affected both people's view of life and also their beer, wine, and medical treatment. Skinner's discoveries in the field of the transactions of a higher organism with its environment will have a greater and more enduring effect on man's view of himself than the views of Freud. Meanwhile, slowly but increasingly, education is being influenced by Skinner's findings, and perhaps someday they may influence broadly how men dispense justice and punishment, raise children, handle neuroses, organize an economic system and conduct international relations. Reprinted from Dews, P. B. (Ed.). (1970). Festschrift for B. F. Skinner (pp. ix–x). New York, NY: Irvington. Copyright 1977. Reproduced with permission of Ardent Media, Inc., in the format Journal via Copyright Clearance Center.

A Letter Signed: The Very Beginnings of Dalton's Atomic Theory

This paper explores the provenance and content of a previously unknown personal letter by John Dalton (1766–1844), which is dated 12 April 1803. It relates to a startling breakthrough in Dalton's research, which pre-dates by five months the earliest date in his laboratory notebook, namely, 6 September 1803. The author acquired the letter about thirty years ago, and now offers it to the public. He makes no attempt to explain how it contributes to — or even changes — our understanding of Dalton, but leaves that privilege to Dalton scholars.

Putting Darwin in His Place: The Need to Watch Our Language

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] In this article, we examine the use of language in debating evolution, and suggest careful choice of the terms by which we describe both ourselves and our opponents. Present-day evolution science is solidly based on fact, and is as far advanced from original as present-day chemistry is from Dalton's atomic theory. For this reason and others, the common practice of referring to our current understanding of evolution as Darwin's theory is ill judged, inaccurate, and a public relations blunder. Only partly tongue-in-cheek, we also propose language to describe the opponents of evolution science. We suggest Supernaturalist as a blanket term for all creationists and intelligent design advocates who deny that biology can ever be explained by the ordinary laws of nature. Within these, we distinguish resurgent Paleyists who maintain that biological complexity must be the handiwork of a Designer, Flintstone creationists who believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted on a young Earth, and Occasional creationists who believe in repeated separate divine creations on multiple occasions for different kinds of organism. Introduction We celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, his most important book and one of the most influential in the entire history of science. There is much to celebrate; but for this very reason, we suggest, we should be careful to distinguish between own contributions and the vastly extended scientific framework that incorporates them. To do otherwise diminishes Darwin by ignoring the subtlety of his thought, and distorts the many-stranded scientific logic that leads to our present understanding of evolution. In addition, in the United States at least, describing evolution science as Darwinism (let alone Darwin's theory) plays into the hands of those who distort or deny it for the sake of their own religious or political agenda. The first of these points was discussed in this journal by Paul Farber (2003). This article will mainly concern itself with the second. Finally, since framing (or labeling) is a two-way street, we suggest labels that accurately reveal the divisions and inconsistencies among the opponents of evolution science. Darwin in Context Darwin was born in 1809, the year that Madison took over the presidency from Jefferson. He died in 1882, the year Jesse James was shot. His watershed book, The Origin of Species, was first published in 1859, shortly before the American Civil War. He did not know about genes, mutations, molecular biology, information theory, DNA, population dynamics and ecology, or the age of the Earth. Not realizing the discrete nature of inherited information, he could know neither how variation arose, nor how variation could be copied without diluting it. His fossil record was full of major gaps, while the use of biochemistry to explore phylogeny lay almost a century in the future. account required a novel mechanism of inheritance. We have that, in the science of genetics. It required ways of generating new variations. We have that, in the processes of mutation, gene transposition, and gene doubling. It required ways in which new organs could come into being. We have that at the level of function in the process known as exaptation, where a feature originally developed for one function, such as the feathers that kept dinosaurs warm, acquire a separate function in their descendants. We are also moving closer to it at the molecular level, with the discovery of control genes, which can turn whole blocks of genetic information on and off (see Carroll, 2005). It required vast expanses of time, and now, thanks to radioactive dating, we have that to an extent far beyond 19th-century imagination. (For a thorough treatment of this, with comments specifically directed at students troubled by the six orders of magnitude difference from the literalist interpretation of Genesis, see Wiens, 2002. …

Tracing Influence in Small Steps: Richard Kirwan's Quantified Affinity Theory

This paper presents an attempt to negotiate the familiar historiographical difficulties of tracing influence in science without fear of accusations of whiggishness. Through a close reading of three papers presented to the Royal Society by Richard Kirwan in the early 1780s on specific gravity, proportions and affinity, it seeks to show that the search for the role of influence in the history of science need not be based on a present-centred value judgement of past science. Prevailing historiography tends to link Kirwan's work to notions of definite combining proportions, settling him firmly on the Proust side of the Berthollet–Proust debate and regarding his work as vaguely precursory to Dalton's atomic theory. My reading suggests, however, that these papers may well have had a surprising level of influence on Berthollet's Chemical Statics and should perhaps be viewed through a somewhat different historical lens. I hope to show that the tracing of historical influence can offer valuable insights to historians of science and that when influence is tracked in small steps only, and forwards rather than backwards, we can legitimately follow it without fear of present-centredness clouding our vision.

Chemistry Industry and Environment

From the beginnings of modern chemistry to Dalton's atomic theory from molecules to the periodic table radioactivity and the structure of atoms the modern atom and the periodic table bonding in elements and in compounds chemical structure and physical properties radiation and molecules acids and bases oxidation-reduction reactions reaction rates and pathways energy, entropy and chemical change energy for the 21st century down to earth chemistry metals an introduction to organic chemistry organic compounds from petroleum in transportation and agriculture structural polymers carbohydrates, lipids and proteins informational biopolymers, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

Withstanding the Test of Time

Withstanding the Test of Time

Essay on a manner of determining the relative masses of the elementary molecules of bodies, and the proportions in which they enter into these compounds

Avogadro was essentially a theoretical scientist, not an experimentalist. A few years earlier to the time around which Avogadro started his scientific career, Dalton's atomic theory had been announced, and GayLussac had published his memoir on combining volumes. The sharp analytical intellect of Avogadro could quickly grasp the import of uniting the two ideas. He had noted Dalton's pitfalls in applying the atomic theory to the formation of molecules. He had, on the other hand, great faith in Gay-Lussac's experimental results which led to the law of combining volumes. (Gay-Lussac was one of the most respected scientists of his time. The quality and the amount of work he had produced on gases was unmatched. He undertook hot-air balloon flights for experimental purposes, and having achieved a height of 7000 m, a record at that time, he was a house-hold name.)

Using History to Teach Scientific Method: The Role of Errors

Including tales of error along with tales of discovery is desirable in any use of history of science to teach about science. Tales of error, particularly when they involve justly well-regarded historical figures, serve to avoid two pitfalls to which use of historical material in science teaching is otherwise susceptible. Acknowledging the false steps of great scientists avoids putting those scientists on a pedestal and illustrates that there is no automatic or mechanical scientific method. This paper lists five kinds of error with examples of each from the development of chemistry in the 18th and 19th centuries: erroneous theories (such as phlogiston), seeing a new phenomenon everywhere one seeks it (e.g., Lavoisier and the decomposition of water), theories erroneous in detail but nonetheless fruitful (e.g., Dalton's atomic theory), rejection of correct theories (e.g., Avogadro's hypothesis), and incoherent insights (e.g., J. A. R. Newlands' classification of the elements).

How Important Are the Laws of Definite and Multiple Proportions in Chemistry and Teaching Chemistry?--A History and Philosophy of Science Perspective.

The main objectives of this study are:(1) to elaborate a framework based on a rationalreconstruction of developments that led to theformulation of the laws of definite and multipleproportions; (2) to ascertain students' views of the two laws; (3) to formulate criteria based on theframework for evaluating chemistry textbooks'treatment of the two laws; and (4) to provide arationale for chemistry teachers to respond to the question: Can we teach chemistry without the laws of definite and multiple proportions? Results obtained show that most of the textbooks present the laws of definite and multiple proportions within aninductivist perspective, characterized by thefollowing sequence: experimental findings showed that chemical elements combined in fixed/multipleproportions, followed by the formulation of the laws of definite and multiple proportions, and finally Dalton's atomic theory was postulated to explain the laws. Students were found to be reluctant to question the laws that they learnt as the building blocks of chemistry. It is concluded that by emphasizing the laws of definite and multiple proportions, textbooks inevitably endorse the dichotomy between theories and laws, which is questioned by philosophers of science (Lakatos 1970; Giere 1995a, b). An alternativeapproach is presented which shows that we can teach chemistry without the laws of definite and multiple proportions.

TEORIE SENZA ESPERIMENTI

Abstract<title> SUMMARY </title>Amedeo Avogadro is one of the most mentioned scientists in chemistry handbooks. But, strange to say, the evolution of his scientific thought is still unknown to many historians. Traditional historiography sees the basic Avogadro's law, «under the same physical conditions equal volumes of gases contain the same number of particles», in the context of John Dalton's atomic theory. On the contrary, the analysis of Avogadro's first works suggests new elements for a different and correct interpretation. It's an original perspective that shows how much the piedmontese scientist owes to the French physics of the first part of the 19th century, but, above all, his unusual way of being scientist.The manuscript entitled Considération sur la nature des substances connues sous le nom de sels métalliques et sur l'ordre de combinaisons auquel il parait le plus convenable de les rapporter, which was presented before the Academy of Sciences in Turin on the 6th of December 1804, is absolutely unpublished. Avogadro's second work from a chronological point of view, but the first one to deal with a chemical subject, the manuscript is written in a fairly clear handwriting. The text has been exactly reproduced without any alteration to the original draft.

Load-Bearing Ordered Intermetallic Compounds—A Historical View

Chemical combination among metals has been studied for a long time. In the early days, chemists had much difficulty in understanding how metals could combine at all among themselves, often in several different proportions, since this often seemed to be at variance with elementary notions of valency. Indeed, in the last century a distinction was proposed between daltonides and berthollides, the former being compounds with simple ratios of the numbers of constituent atoms… consistent with Dalton's atomic theory!… the latter, called after a skeptical French chemist, being the name reserved for compounds with a wide composition range which scarcely seemed explicable on any reasonable atomic model. A few nostalgic souls still employ these distinctions.An early classic on the subject was a book published by two Italian chemists in 1918. British metallurgist C.H. Desch also wrote a monograph on intermetallic compounds in 1914 (the year when the name “physical metallurgy” was first proposed, and the chemical bias of metallurgy shifted toward a physical one), and he declared that “attempts to form a theory of the constitution of intermetallic compounds… have been comparatively unsuccessful.” When he returned to the subject 20 years later, he felt much more cheerful about the state of the theory because in the meantime Hume-Rothery had introduced the concepts of atomic size factor, electron/atom ratio, and electronegativity (a concept also associated with the name of Linus Pauling) into the discussion of intermetallic phases, or compounds. Today, a battery of sophisticated physical concepts is used to make sense of both binary and multielement intermetallic compounds and they are no longer regarded as chemical anomalies.

Michel Eugène Chevreul (1786–1889): the doyen of French students

Chevreul's long life spanned a century of remarkable progress in chemistry. Born three years before Lavoisier published his Traité, giving the coup de grâce to phlogiston, he lived to see such major advances as the presentation of Dalton's atomic theory; Kekulé's structure theory; Cannizzaro's perception that Avogadro's Hypothesis gave a logical basis for the determination of atomic weights; and Mendeléeff's marshalling of the elements in his Periodic Table.

The Berthollet-Proust Controversy and Dalton's Chemical Atomic Theory 1800–1820

The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's atomic theory are two important historical landmarks which appeared almost simultaneously at the very beginning of the nineteenth century. Therefore it is likely that between the theory of definite proportions—one of the main subjects of the controversy–and Dalton's atomic theory there was an important interrelation, and that they reinforced each other. Kapoor has suggested that Proust could not have been the forerunner of Dalton's law of constant and multiple proportions, because Dalton discovered his law from completely different premises, and does not seem to have got his ideas from Proust. In my opinion, however, his conclusion does not seem to be decisive.

Berthelot's anti-atomism: A ‘matter of taste’?

Summary The influential French chemist Marcelin Berthelot spoke against the use of Dalton's atomic theory and Avogadro's hypothesis in the second half of the nineteenth century. This paper argues that Berthelot conceded that atomism might be acceptable as a system of conventions, but he feared the power of such conventions in constructing a realistic picture of atoms which was not warranted empirically. Equally, Berthelot's anti-atomism was a last-ditch effort to assert the place of chemistry within the tradition of natural history and to deny the possible reduction of chemical science to the laws of nineteenth-century physics.

Daltonides, berthollides and inorganic glasses

With the aim of restoring glasses to their place within the general framework of inorganic chemistry, the author begins by recalling that their deliberate isolation, like that of certain alloys, dates back to Proust's law of constant proportions (1797) and the Dalton atomic theory (1808). The concept of stoichiometry was used to cover up the most glaring exceptions, and, for more than a century, substances that could not be made to fit these new rules were ignored. The first reaction against the rigidity of this attitude, and the use of the term “berthollide”, came from Kurnakov (1914). Shortly afterwards, Schottky and Wagner, using the statistical thermodynamics of ordered solid phases, revealed the border-line character of “daltonides” (1930). Electronic compounds, oxide bronzes, interstitial compounds and chalcogenides provide the author with typical examples of crystallized berthollides. Although a special role can be attributed to certain privileged compositions for each of them, the classic concept of stoichiometry cannot satisfactorily be applied to them. The distinction between glasses and crystallized berthollides lies in the difference in the origin of local variations in composition, and in the greater discrepancy in glass between overall and localized compositions. The short-range order takes the form of structure units, the articulation of which, in chains within a three-dimensional network of bonds, plays a rôle similar to that of the crystallographic structure of crystals. The author shows that privileged overall compositions can also be distinguished, on the basis of phase separation phenomena, the singular points of certain physical properties and, even more directly, the co-ordination numbers of the atoms. In ternary glasses, these concepts lead to a definition of privileged zones, comparable to substitutional solid solutions in the case of crystallized compounds. Their boundaries account fairly well for the vitreous regions revealed by experiment. The case of the systems GeAsSe and AsTeI is touched on briefly.

The Emergence of Dalton's Chemical Atomic Theory: 1801-08

The slow emergence of Dalton's chemical atomic theory has long been a considerable puzzle to historians of science The lengthy delay between Dalton's early work on mixed gases (September 1801) and particle weights (September 1803) and the eventual publication of the first part of hisNew System of Chemical Philosophy(June 1808) has called forth a variety of explanations. It is now more than half a century since A. N. Meldrum stressed“…the efforts Dalton had to make, in order to arouse attention to the importance of his ideas regarding atoms. For some nine years (1801-1810), if not longer, he endeavoured to spread abroad his ideas, both by private communications and publicly, by his writings and by lectures in various parts of the country…“Dalton's chemical theory was formed by the 6th September 1803, and he proceeded forthwith to extend and apply it, and make it known in every direction…”And though Meldrum's view is now no longer accepted, no systematic and detailed account of Dalton's activities over these years is available to replace Meldrum's assertions.

The Origin of Dalton's Chemical Atomic Theory: Daltonian Doubts Resolved

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Origin of Dalton's Chemical Atomic Theory: Daltonian Doubts ResolvedArnold W. ThackrayArnold W. Thackray Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 57, Number 1Spring, 1966 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/350077 Views: 39Total views on this site Citations: 17Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1966 History of Science Society, Inc.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Morgan M. Cencer, Benjamin A. Suslick, Jeffrey S. Moore From skeptic to believer: The power of models, Tetrahedron 71 (Aug 2022): 132984.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tet.2022.132984Edwin C. Constable Through a Glass Darkly—Some Thoughts on Symmetry and Chemistry, Symmetry 13, no.1010 (Oct 2021): 1891.https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13101891Daniel Salerno Theoretical Background, (Oct 2019): 7–44.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31257-2_2MARK I. GROSSMAN John Dalton and the origin of the atomic theory: reassessing the influence of Bryan Higgins, The British Journal for the History of Science 50, no.44 (Oct 2017): 657–676.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087417000851Boaz Galdino de Oliveira Structure, energy, vibrational spectrum, and Bader's analysis of π⋯H hydrogen bonds and H −δ ⋯H +δ dihydrogen bonds, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 15, no.11 (Jan 2013): 37–79.https://doi.org/10.1039/C2CP41749AJohn Henry The Chemical Revolution: Priestley and Lavoisier; John Dalton and Beyond, (Jan 2012): 169–184.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-35646-7_15Karen R. Zwier John Dalton’s puzzles: from meteorology to chemistry, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42, no.11 (Mar 2011): 58–66.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.021 Paul Needham Has Daltonian Atomism Provided Chemistry with Any Explanations? Paul Needham, Philosophy of Science 71, no.55 (Jul 2015): 1038–1047.https://doi.org/10.1086/428008M. G. Kim The Layers of Chemical Language, II: Stabilizing Atoms and Molecules in the Practice of Organic Chemistry, History of Science 30, no.44 (Dec 1992): 397–437.https://doi.org/10.1177/007327539203000403L.A. Whitt Atoms or affinities? The ambivalent reception of Daltonian theory, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21, no.11 (Mar 1990): 57–89.https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(90)90015-ZTheron Cole Dalton, Mixed Gases, and the Origin of the Chemical Atomic Theory, Ambix 25, no.22 (Jul 2013): 117–130.https://doi.org/10.1179/amb.1978.25.2.117Alan J. Rocke Atoms and Equivalents: The Early Development of the Chemical Atomic Theory, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9 (Jan 1978): 225–263.https://doi.org/10.2307/27757379W. A. Smeaton Berthollet's Essai De Statique Chimique and its Translations: A Bibliographical Note and a Daltonian Doubt, Ambix 24, no.33 (Nov 1977): 149–158.https://doi.org/10.1179/000269877791503826W. A. Smeaton Berthollet's Essai De Statique Chimique and its Translations: A Bibliographical Note and a Daltonian Doubt, Ambix 24, no.33 (Jul 2013): 149–158.https://doi.org/10.1179/amb.1977.24.3.149Seymour H. Mauskopf Thomson before Dalton, Annals of Science 25, no.33 (Aug 2006): 229–242.https://doi.org/10.1080/00033796900200131J. B. Morrell Thomas Thomson: Professor of Chemistry and University Reformer, The British Journal for the History of Science 4, no.33 (Jan 2009): 245–265.https://doi.org/10.1017/S000708740000995X Robert P. Multhauf , Bernard S. Finn , Aleida Cattell Renwick , Diana D. Menkes , and Virginia Skidmore Rutledge Ninety-Second Critical Bibliography of the History of Science and Its Cultural Influences (To 1 January 1967), Isis 58, no.55 (Oct 2015): 1–143.https://doi.org/10.1086/350330