The periodic law of the

chemical elements: ‘The new

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta
system of atomic weights which
renders evident the analogies
Introduction which exist between bodies’ [1]
Cite this article: Edwards PP, Egdell RG, Peter P. Edwards1,2 , Russell G. Egdell2 , Dieter Fenske3
Fenske D, Yao B. 2020 The periodic law of the
chemical elements: ‘The new system of atomic and Benzhen Yao1,2
weights which renders evident the analogies
1 KACST-Oxford Centre of Excellence in Petrochemicals, Inorganic
which exist between bodies’ [1]. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. A 378: 20190537. Chemistry Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, and 2 Inorganic
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0537 Chemistry Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, University of
Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QR, UK
3 Institute of Nanotechnology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Accepted: 3 July 2020
(KIT), Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
One contribution of 11 to a theme issue PPE, 0000-0002-1379-9400; RGE, 0000-0002-1438-4426
‘Mendeleev and the periodic table’.
The historical roots, the discovery and the modern
Subject Areas: relevance of Dmitri Mendeleev’s remarkable advance
inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry have been the subject of numerous scholarly works.
Here, with a brief overview, we hope to provide a link
Keywords: into the contents of this special issue honouring the
great scientist. Mendeleev’s advance, announced in
Mendeleev, periodic table, periodic law
March 1869, as he put it in 1889, to the ‘ . . . then youthful
Russian Chemical Society . . . ’, first set out the very basis
Author for correspondence: of the periodic law of the chemical elements, the
Peter P. Edwards natural relation between the properties of the elements
e-mail: peter.edwards@chem.ox.ac.uk and their atomic weights. This was, and still is, the
centrepiece of a historical journey for chemistry to
today’s position as a pre-eminent science.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘Mendeleev
and the periodic table’.

1. Introduction: The New Light

Every so often in science there is a discovery or
advance whose brilliance is such that one’s entire
knowledge, experience, conceptions and also intuition
even the day after such an event simply bear no
relation whatsoever to those that went the day before.

2020 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
 2

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378: 20190537

...............................................................
Figure 1. A portrait of the 27-year-old Dmitri Mendeleev (Credit: Wikimedia Commons) and his 1869 handwritten version of the
periodic law of the chemical elements (Credit: Science Photo Library).

So it was on the 6th of March 1869 at a meeting of the Russian Chemical Society in St Petersburg
when a paper by Dmitri Mendeleev with the title ‘Relation of the Properties to the Atomic Weights
of the Elements’ was read to the audience by Nikolai Menshutkin, an associate of Mendeleev’s
(figure 1). Apparently the author himself was away on a trip to inspect the cheese-making
procedures employed in the Russian countryside!
Chemistry is not merely an immense collection of facts, but more an exact science that teaches
us to classify and arrange these facts, and that classification must begin with the chemical
elements themselves.
Thus, in 1869, Mendeleev’s advance, unlike many attempts of his many predecessors, used
two sets of data for a complete classification of the chemical elements, namely, elements’
atomic weights and their inherent similarities in chemical properties [2]. With this epoch-
making advance, the resulting periodic law of the chemical elements was born. Not only did
Mendeleev show that a remarkable, natural periodicity existed in the chemical properties of the
elements then known, but he also had the courage and the vision to state that this method of
classification constituted a fundamental law of nature and identified gaps in the classification as
then-undiscovered elements (figure 2).
The resulting, modern periodic table of the elements is surely one of the most powerful—and
easily recognizable—icons that pervade all of science [3] (figure 3).
This single representation, over one and a half centuries after its first appearance, still
consolidates and represents so much of our modern knowledge of the world around us. Aside
from providing a natural order to the chemical elements known at that time, Mendeleev’s
underpinning periodic law allowed for the prediction of the existence and remarkably the atomic
order of chemical elements not then known, but discovered soon after.
Even today, nothing quite like the periodic table exists in any other disciplines of science.
Reznick in this volume highlights the parallels—and also a significant difference—between the
 3

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378: 20190537

...............................................................
Figure 2. Mendeleev’s 1870 original version of the periodic system. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons).

Figure 3. A representation of the modern periodic table of the chemical elements based here through a representation of the
covalent radii of the elements. Remarkably, even without designating the chemical elements, this is instantly recognized as a
representation of the periodic table. The metallic and non-metallic status of the chemical elements (as reflected in the shading
of the spheres) is taken from G. T. Seaborg, Dalton Trans., 1996, 3899 [4]. Credit for this representation to Karl Harrison, University
of Oxford [5]. (Online version in colour.)
discovery and subsequent development of the periodic table and Darwin’s discovery of evolution
4
and the subsequent development of evolutionary biology [6].
To highlight the cascading impact of Mendeleev’s 1869 advance, we reproduce here simply a

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378: 20190537

...............................................................
single commentary, taken from a standard scientific text of that time; this is ‘Atomic Theory’ by Ad
Wurtz [1], published just over a decade after the first publication of this advance:

The work of Mendeleev has lately thrown a new light upon the relations existing between
the atomic weights of the elements and their properties. The latter are a function of the
atomic weight, which function is periodic. It is not limited to such and such a group of
elements, but embraces all of the elementary bodies of chemistry . . . thus dealing with the
most varied and the most profound questions of science . . . in a word, regard the facts of
chemistry from a lofty and comprehensive point of view.

Mendeleev first challenged the world and then led us to confront how prepared were our
minds to recognize an advance of sheer brilliance—a genuine seminal advance—which, quite
simply, changed our world the day after its appearance in 1869.
Besides the discovery of the periodic law of the chemical elements, Mendeleev also made other
critical contributions to chemical problems of broad scope. For example, it is perhaps not well
recognized that Mendeleev studied the origins of petroleum and launched the idea of the so-
called ‘abiotic origin’ hypothesis that hydrocarbons originated from iron carbides by the action of
water vapour in the deep interior of the earth. He wrote: ‘The capital fact to note is that petroleum
was born in the depths of the earth, and it is only there that we must seek its origin’ [7]. Remarkably,
Mendeleev’s insights relating to abundant, highly-active iron based catalysts now come to the
fore not only in modern studies of the utilization of CO2 but also in their effective ‘hydrogen
stripping’ from fossil fuels, with the energy carrier hydrogen now advanced as a solution to the
world’s looming climate emergency, as highlighted in the article by Yao et al. [8].

2. The simple or natural elementary bodies (the situation pre-1869)

Dalton, still widely regarded as ‘the immortal author’, recognized chemical combinations as
being formed by the union or addition of elementary atoms, the relative weights of which
he endeavoured to determine, referring those weights to one of the elements—hydrogen—as
unity. Dalton revived and advanced the hypothesis of atoms to explain the fact that in chemical
combinations, elements unite in fixed proportions, and in certain cases in multiple proportions [9].
Thus, prior to Mendeleev’s 1869 advance, all substances were universally placed as belonging
to only two classes—simple or elementary bodies or substances and compound substances.
A listing taken from a textbook [10] just one year before Mendeleev’s discovery vividly highlights
the situation at that time (figure 4). This remarkable compilation reveals the totality of the world’s
then-known Elementary Bodies, together with their appropriate characteristics. At that stage,
upon these 64 elementary bodies, the entire fabric and classification of the science—and indeed
the application—of chemistry was based.

3. The ‘lofty point of view’ of Mendeleev (1869 and beyond)

Mendeleev’s advance was both simple in its principle and stunningly productive in its results.
In his Faraday Lecture of the Chemical Society of London presented at the Royal Institution on
June 4th, 1889, Mendeleev announced that he could, even at that stage—note, only the twentieth
anniversary of his discovery—conclude that the periodic law was now generally considered
proven. At that lecture, he presented his conclusions relating to the periodic law of the chemical
elements, noting, ‘It was in March, 1869, that I ventured to lay before the then youthful Russian Chemical
Society the ideas upon the same subject’ [11].
 5

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378: 20190537

...............................................................
Figure 4. The 1868 List of the Natural Elementary Bodies with their Symbols, Combining weights and Specific Gravities. The
black letters indicate the non-metallic substances; the italics, the commonly occurring metals and the ordinary type, the
rarer metals. (Taken from reference [10]).

We reproduce here just four of his eight remarkable conclusions that one must surely still find
startling in the sheer power and scale of that advance . . . .‘in the very words I (he) used’ (at the
Russian Chemical Society) . . .

‘1. The elements, if arranged according to their atomic weights, exhibit an evident
periodicity of properties’.

‘5. The magnitude of the atomic weight determines the character of the element just as the
magnitude of the molecule determines the character of a compound body’.

‘6. We must expect the discovery of many yet unknown elements . . . ’

and

‘8. Certain characteristic properties of the elements can be foretold from their atomic
weights’.

Mendeleev concluded, ‘Today, 20 years after the above conclusions were formulated, they may still be
considered as expressing the essence of the now well-known periodic law’.
4. The contribution of Lothar Meyer 6
Among the characteristic properties dependent upon, and foretold from atomic weight, one finds,

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378: 20190537

...............................................................
remarkably, even the characteristic density of an element. The fact that even a chemical element’s
density was subject to periodic variations with the increasing value of the atomic weights was first
brilliantly highlighted by Lothar Meyer. For such a graphic and enduring construction, we must
also remain indebted to Meyer who independently contributed a highly important development
to the periodic law of the chemical elements [12].
Thus, if the chemical elements are arranged along the axis of the abscissae, at distances from
zero and proportional to their atomic weights, each element thereby occupies a fixed point
along the axis. If an ordinate is then drawn and placed on that the atomic volume of the given
element, this graphic description reveals at once that the variations of the atomic volumes (and
consequently of the density of an element) are periodic [13]. With this seminal advance, Meyer
proved that the position occupied by the element on this curve is in relation to its physical
property of density (figure 5).
Thus, as far as the densities are concerned, it is evident from the very principle upon which
the curve is constructed that the light chemical elements (having considerable atomic volumes)
occupy the maxima and the heavy metals (possessing low atomic volumes) the minima. Thus,
the alkali elements (Li, Na, K, Rb and Cs) make up the peaks of the curve while the alkaline earth
metals (Be, Mg, Ca, Sr and Ba) are found on the descending slope and the halogens (F, Cl, Br
and I) on the ascending part of the curve. The importance of an element’s molar volume (directly
related to its density) in dictating whether it is a metal or non-metal was first highlighted by D. A.
Goldhammer in 1913 and independently by K. F. Herzfeld in 1927 [14,15]. Thus, Herzfeld noted,
for example, if the element Ag had the large atomic volume of K, it would not be a metal. On the
other hand, if the noble gas Xe had, in the solid state, the low molar volume of Cu, it would be a
metal. The entire issue of the occurrence of metals and non-metals in the periodic table forms the
basis of the contribution in this volume of Yao et al. [16]. It is salutary to note that Mendeleev
wrote ‘The preparation of metallic sodium by Humphrey Davy was one of the greatest discoveries in
chemistry’, reflecting the fact that this was the first example of a ‘light’ (i.e. low density, large
molar volume) metallic element. Prior to this monumental discovery, the established elemental
metals were heavy, high density elements, such as Au, Hg and Pb. Thus, as Mendeleev noted,
‘ . . . through it (Davy’s discovery) the conception of elements became broader and more correct’. Truly,
one of the greatest discoveries in science.
Meyer further noted that many other physical properties of the elements, such as ductility,
fusibility and volatility, are similarly related to their atomic weights and are subject to periodic
variations with the increase of their atomic weights.
Here again the obvious periodicity in the variations of basic physical properties was a striking
manifestation of Mendeleev’s periodic law of the chemical elements. Thus, there can be no
doubt that Meyer independently discovered the key, central principles of the periodic law of the
chemical elements. This graphical representation of the atomic volume as a function of the atomic
weight of the solid elements by Meyer also constituted a seminal advance.
In relation to the extent and impact of the contributions of both scientists in the formulation
of the periodic law, we note that in 1882 the Royal Society of London awarded their gold Davy
Medal, one of their highest distinctions, to Mendeleev and Meyer jointly, ‘For their discovery of the
periodic relations of the atomic weights’ [17].

5. Life after the 1869 periodic law

After the publication of Mendeleev’s seminal papers, the periodic table increasingly became
part of the teaching of chemistry in universities throughout the world toward the end of the
nineteenth century, and periodic table wallcharts became available commercially. The discovery
of a periodic table chart dating from 1885 at the University of St Andrews, Scotland, thought
to be the oldest in the world, is reviewed in the paper by Aitken and colleagues [18]. The
 7

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378: 20190537

...............................................................
Figure 5. The relationships between the atomic weights of the elements and their atomic volumes (after Meyer). Taken from
reference [1].

relationship between pictorial representation of Mendeleev’s ideas in his Table and the visual
appeal of Charles Darwin’s Tree is explored in the paper by Reznick [6].
In terms of theoretical advances, Mendeleev, of course, could not know about the existence
of sub-atomic particles and therefore he arranged the periodic table strictly by atomic weight,
which implied that something about atomic weight dictated the physical and chemical properties
of the elements. Many decades passed before it was realized that it was the number and nature of
electrons (and nucleons) that really determined the properties of elements.
The journey toward rationalizing the structure of the periodic table in terms of the electronic
configurations of atoms began of course with the discovery of the electron by J. J. Thomson in
1897 [19]. In 1901, Jean Perrin first suggested a planetary model of the atom [20], with orbiting
electrons, but Thomson himself favoured the so-called plum pudding model [21]. He was keenly
interested in the link between atomic structure and chemical periodicity and in 1904 began to
speculate as to how the arrangement of the plums within the pudding might be related to
the chemistry of the elements [22]. These ideas never really developed into anything useful.
Chemists Gilbert N. Lewis and Irving Langmuir also proposed static models with characteristic
arrangements of electrons within the nucleus [23].
The most significant steps leading to our current understanding of chemical periodicity
were all linked to the Manchester group of Ernest Rutherford, whose analysis of the α-particle
scattering experiments performed by Geiger and Marsden led to his nuclear model of the atom
[24], giving a more secure foundation to some of the ideas proposed by Perrin. Working as a
demonstrator and research fellow within Rutherford’s group, Henry Moseley went on to show
that the charge on the atomic nucleus could be equated with the order number of an element in the
periodic table [25,26]. Moseley’s conclusions were based on the measurement of the frequencies
of X-rays emitted from different elements under bombardment by cathode rays, as discussed in
the paper by Egdell and Bruton in this volume [27]. In parallel with Moseley’s experiments, the
Danish physicist Niels Bohr, who was a regular visitor to Manchester, was working on his famous
trilogy of papers published in 1913 [28]. In the first of these Bohr introduced the ideas of concentric
circular rings that could be occupied by the single electron in a hydrogen atom, each ring having a
characteristic quantized energy and angular momentum determined by a single quantum number
n [29]. In his second paper, Bohr began to grapple with the occupancy of the different rings in
atoms with more than one electron [30]. He had hoped that the screening constants in Moseley’s
formulae for the frequencies of K- and L-type X-rays would provide some guidance as to ring
occupancy [31], but in the end, he proposed configurations for elements up to Z = 24 on a fairly ad
8
hoc basis. Bohr continued to explore the relationship between periodicity and electronic structure,
later incorporating a second or subsidiary quantum number k (this would now be labelled l)

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378: 20190537

...............................................................
introduced by Sommerfeld based on consideration of elliptical orbits with differing eccentricities.
In his 1922 Nobel Lecture Bohr summarized his work to date on periodicity and specified electron
configurations for most elements up to Z = 90 (thorium) [23]. The next major contribution to
electron configurations based on the ‘old’ quantum theory of the Bohr–Sommerfeld model came
from Edmund Stoner, who introduced the idea of a third quantum number j (this would now be
called ml ) which could take on 2k+1 integer values ranging from –k to +k [32].
The final steps in the journey followed the introduction of the new quantum mechanics of
Heisenberg and Schrödinger; the (approximate) solution of the Schrödinger equation for many-
electron atoms, which provided a rigorous basis for the quantum numbers l and ml and an
understanding of why states with the same n but different l have different energies; and finally
exposition of the Pauli exclusion principle, which allowed a maximum occupancy of two for each
state specified by the quantum numbers n, l and ml [33].
At the time of Bohr’s Nobel Lecture in 1922, the heaviest known element was uranium with
Z = 92. However, in his table of electron configurations, Bohr suggested (without comment as
to why) an electron configuration for element 118, realizing that it should have an arrangement
with eight electrons in the outer shell, similar to that of the noble gases with Z values of 10 (Ne),
18 (Ar), 36 (Kr) and 54 (Xe). There is something strikingly prescient about Bohr’s inclusion of
element 118. As discussed in the paper by Chapman in this volume [34], the periodic table now
extends to element 118 (oganesson) and no further. This is thanks to several decades of laboratory
based research into the nucleosynthesis of super heavy elements, culminating in the acceptance
by IUPAC in 2015 of elements 113, 115, 117 and 118. In parallel with the synthesis of elements
beyond uranium, there has been sustained effort over the past 50 years in exploring the effects
of relativity on the electronic structure of heavy and superheavy elements. The paper by Pyper
analyses the influence of relativistic effects on atomic properties and bonding and shows how the
periodic trends exhibited by the lighter elements begin to change in the bottom row of the periodic
table [35]. This in turn poses new challenges as to how best to present the periodic table when
known superheavy elements and beyond are included, a matter discussed in detail in the paper
by Scerri. This paper also deals with the thorny issue of how best to incorporate the lanthanides
and actinides in the table [36].
Most of the new elements discussed by Chapman were prepared by carefully designed fusion
reactions. The chapter by Johnson, Fields and Thompson considers the much broader topic of the
origin of the naturally occurring elements [37]. The state of knowledge in this field is reviewed
and the level of confidence in each of the proposed mechanisms is given. In particular, the role
of neutron star mergers in producing the heaviest elements through the so-called r-process is
critically assessed.

6. Concluding remarks
A ‘Modern periodic table’ (admittedly from 1996) is shown in figure 6 [4]; this is from an article
from another of the ‘Greats’, the chemist Glenn T Seaborg, who pioneered the study of the
synthesis of the new chemical elements. Seaborg, the first living person to be honoured by the
naming of a chemical element after him, synthesized 10 new elements heavier than uranium.
Seaborg noted ‘The chemical elements are the building blocks of nature. All substances are combinations
of these elements’. The periodic law represents perhaps the most decisive progress ever made in
the application of theory to the subject of chemistry. The key element in Mendeleev’s scheme was
its basis in experimental (i.e. observed) patterns and trends in chemical properties—and not, as
chemists and physicists unconsciously (and frequently) seem to assume, quantum mechanics.
The periodic law of the chemical elements of Mendeleev, without question, is the most
fundamental natural system of classification ever devised. It represents a triumph of one of the
great organizing themes of science. We hope that the articles in this special issue are a noble
 alkali metals
9
alkaline earth metals
transition metals

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378: 20190537

...............................................................
other metals
non-metals
noble-gases

lanthanides series

actinide series

Figure 6. Modern (1996) periodic table (atomic numbers of undiscovered elements in parentheses). Taken from reference [4].
(Online version in colour.)

tribute and accolade to that triumph, and genius, to the glorious name of Dmitri Mendeleev in
establishing for the world the periodic law of the chemical elements.
Data accessibility. This article has no additional data.
Authors’ contributions. P.P.E. worked with R.G.E., D.F. and B.Y. on conception and design of the article; P.P.E.
worked on drafting the article, and all the authors worked on revising the article for important intellectual
content. P.P.E. is the final approver of the version to be published.
Competing interests. We declare we have no competing interests.
Funding. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from EPSRC (EP/N009924/1) and KACST, Saudi
Arabia.
Acknowledgements. We are indebted to Alice Power, Commissioning Editor, for her unstinting support and
professionalism in all stages of this endeavour, and to Amie Mustill, Production Editor, and colleagues
for their expert assistance. We thank Peter J and Claire Edwards and Family for their gifts of the 1889
volume ‘Atomic Theory’ by A. D. Wurtz and the 1868 volume ‘Class Book of Modern Science’ that helped
in constructing this perspective.

References
1. Wurtz AD. 1881 The atomic theory. Third edition. London, UK: C. Kegan Paul & Company,
Paternoster Square.
2. Mendeleev D. 1869 On the relationship of the properties of the elements to their atomic
weights. Zeitschrift für Chemie 12, 405–406.
3. Poliakoff M, Tang S. 2015 The periodic table: icon and inspiration. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373,
20140211. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0211)
4. Seaborg GT. 1996 Evolution of the modern periodic table. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 20, 3899–
3907. (doi:10.1039/DT9960003899)
5. Edwards PP, Krebs B, Raithby P, Long N, Cheetham A, Schröder M. 2015 The new chemistry
of the elements. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20140190. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0190).
6. Reznick D. 2020 The tree and the table: Darwin, Mendeleev and the meaning of ‘theory’. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20190309. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0309)
7. Mendeleev D. 1877 L’origine du petrole ((The Origin of Petroleum). Rev. Sci. 13, 409–416.
 8. Yao B, Kuznetsov VL, Xiao T, Jie X, Gonzalez-Cortes S, Dilworth JR, Al-Megren HA, Alshihri
10
SM, Edwards PP. 2020 Fuels, power and chemical periodicity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378,
20190308. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0308)

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378: 20190537

...............................................................
9. Viana HE, Porto PA. 2010 The development of Dalton’s atomic theory as a case study
in the history of science: Reflections for educators in chemistry. Sci. Educ. 19, 75.
(doi:10.1007/s11191-008-9182-2)
10. The authors of the textbook. 1868 Class-Book of modern science, Simpkin and Marshall. London,
UK: John Heywood, Manchester.
11. Mendeleev DI. 1889 The periodic law of the chemical elements. J. Chem. Soc., Trans. 55,
634–656. (doi:10.1039/CT8895500634)
12. Logan DE, Edwards PP. 1985 The periodic system of the elements. In The metallic and non-
metallic states of matter. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
13. Meyer L. 1870 Die Natur der chemischen Elemente als Function ihrer Atomgewichte. Ann.
Chem. Pharm. Suppl. 7, 354–364.
14. Goldhammer DA. 1913 Dispersion Und Absorption Des Lichtes. In Ruhenden isotropen körpern;
theorie Und ihre folgerungen. Leipzig, Germany: Teubner.
15. Herzfeld KF. 1927 On atomic properties which make an element a metal. Phys. Rev. 29, 701.
(doi:10.1103/PhysRev.29.701)
16. Yao B, Kuznetsov VL, Xiao T, Slocombe DR, Rao CNR, Hensel F, Edwards PP. 2020
Metals and non-metals in the periodic table. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20200213.
(doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0213)
17. Editorial. 2019 Chemistry’s table of contents. Nat. Chem. 11, 1. (doi:10.1038/s41557-018-
0199-0)
18. Aitken RA, Gil MP. 2020 The periodic table and other wallcharts in the teaching of
chemistry in St Andrews, 1884–1919. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20190299. (doi:10.1098/rsta.
2019.0299)
19. Thomson JJ. 1897 Cathode rays. Philosoph. Mag. Ser 5 44, 293–316. (doi:10.1080/1478
6449708621070)
20. Perrin J. 1901 Les hypotheses moleculaires. Revue Scientifique. 15, 449–461.
21. Thomson JJ. 1904 On the structure of the atom: an investigation of the stability and periods of
oscillation of a number of corpuscles arranged at equal intervals around the circumference of
a circle; with application of the results to the theory of atomic structure. Phil. Mag. Series 6 7,
237–265. (doi:10.1080/14786440409463107)
22. Thomson JJ. 1907 The corpuscular theory of matter. London, UK: Constable and Company.
23. Bohr N. 1965 The structure of the atom. In Nobel lectures, physics 1922–1941), pp. 7–43.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Publishing Company.
24. Rutherford E. 1911 The scattering of alpha and beta particles by matter and the structure of
the atom. Phil. Mag. Ser. 6 21, 669–688. (doi:10.1080/14786440508637080)
25. Moseley HGJ. 1913 The high-frequency spectra of the elements. Phil. Mag. Ser. 6 26, 1024–1034.
(doi:10.1080/14786441308635052)
26. Moseley HGJ. 1914 The high-frequency spectra of the elements. Part II. Phil. Mag. Ser. 6 27,
703–713. (doi:10.1080/14786440408635141)
27. Egdell RG, Bruton E. 2020 Henry Moseley, X-ray spectroscopy and the periodic table. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20190302. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0302)
28. Aaserud F, Heilbron JL. 2013 Love, literature and the quantum atom: Niels Bohr’s 1913 trilogy
revisited. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29. Bohr N. 1913 On the constitution of atoms and molecules. Phil. Mag. Ser. 6 26, 1–25.
(doi:10.1080/14786441308634955)
30. Bohr N. 1913 On the constitution of atoms and molecules. Part II. Systems containing only a
single nucleus. Phil. Mag. Ser. 6 26, 476–502. (doi:10.1080/14786441308634993)
31. Heilbron JL. 2018 Accounts of Moseley and versions of his laws. In For science, king and country:
the life and legacy of Henry Moseley (eds R MacLeod, RG Egdell, E Bruton Bruton), pp. 224–243.
London, UK: Unicorn Publishing Group.
32. Scerri E. 2016 A tale of seven scientists and a new philosophy of science, pp. 117–148. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
33. Scerri E. 2007 The periodic table: its story and significance, pp. 227–248. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
34. Chapman K. 2020 The transuranic elements and the island of stability. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A
11
378, 20190535. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0535)
35. Pyper NC. 2020 Relativity and the periodic table. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20190305.

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378: 20190537

...............................................................
(doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0305)
36. Scerri E. 2020 Recent attempts to change the periodic table. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20190300.
(doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0300)
37. Johnson JA, Fields BD, Thompson TA. 2020 The origin of the elements: a century of progress.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20190301. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0301)