elements, however, the analogy relied on may be misleading; at
least, it is obviously incomplete. It is incomplete in a
particular which may be very important: the mode of origin of
these parent bodies--whatever it may have been--is different to
that of the secondary elements with which we compare them. A
convergence in their rate of transformation is not impossible, or
even improbable, so far as we known.

As regards the second point: It is assumed that uranium alone of
the elements in radioactive minerals is ultimately transformed to
lead by radioactive changes. We must consider this assumption.

Recent advances in the chemistry of the radioactive elements has
brought out evidence that all three lines of radioactive descent
known to us--_i.e._ those beginning with uranium, with thorium,
and with actinium--alike converge to lead.[1] There are
difficulties in the way of believing that all the lead-like atoms
so produced ("isotopes" of lead, as Soddy proposes to call them)
actually remain as stable lead in the minerals. For one

[1] See Soddy's _Chemistry of the Radioactive Elements_ (Longmans,
Green & Co.).

24

thing there is sometimes, along with very large amounts of
thorium, an almost entire absence of lead in thorianites and
thorites. And in some urano--thorites the lead may be noticed to
follow the uranium in approximate proportionality,
notwithstanding the presence of large amounts of thorium.[1] This