Spectrum analysis identifies substances by the positions and patterns of characteristic spectral lines, rather than by the overall colour of a flame alone. A small amount of a suitable salt is introduced into a hot, weakly luminous flame. In the historical prism spectroscope, light enters a narrow slit, a collimator makes the emerging rays nearly parallel, a prism separates them by wavelength, and an observing telescope shows images of the slit at different spectral positions. A reference scale or comparison spectrum makes positions reproducible.
A clean platinum wire and reagent blank help distinguish the sample's signal from contamination. A reference sample establishes the expected positions, while repeated cleaning and testing check whether an unfamiliar line belongs to the sample. Several substances can be recognized in one mixture because their characteristic line patterns can coexist, although overlapping lines and changing excitation conditions complicate identification. Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchhoff's original account explicitly emphasizes the faint background of the flame, the prism instrument and the characteristic patterns of alkali and alkaline-earth salts.[ref]
Chemical Analysis by Observation of Spectra by Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen. 1860 paper, apparatus and comparison of salt spectra
In modern terms, emission lines arise when excited chemical atoms or ions release photons at energies corresponding to allowed differences between energy levels:The quantum mechanics behind this equation is a later explanation, not the theory available to an 1866 candidate. Similarly, absorption lines appear when a cooler foreground gas removes particular wavelengths from a brighter background. Agreement between laboratory line positions and dark lines in the solar spectrum permits identification of constituents of the solar atmosphere without bringing a solar sample into the laboratory. It does not establish the detailed chemical constitution of every layer of the Sun.
By December 1866, striking examples included caesium (1860), rubidium (1861), thallium (1861) and indium (1863). The first two were recognized in the work of Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchhoff, using conspicuous blue and deep-red spectral features respectively. William Crookes recognized the characteristic green line associated with thallium, while Ferdinand Reich and Hieronymus Theodor Richter identified indium through its indigo-blue spectral signature. These observations motivated chemical separation and further characterization; an unexpected line by itself is a clue to a new chemical element, not a complete proof.[ref]
Caesium — Element information, properties and uses. History, discovery in 1860
[ref]Rubidium — Element information, properties and uses. History, discovery in 1861
[ref]Thallium — Element information, properties and uses. History, green spectral line and 1861 announcement
[ref]Indium — Element information, properties and uses. History, 1863 discovery
The corresponding recognition of familiar chemical elements in the solar spectrum opened stellar chemical analysis. Later discoveries such as solar helium should not be credited to the 1866 state of the subject.
Establish that the stain contains blood; then state separately whether its human origin can be established. In 1867, a positive blood test could not reliably distinguish human blood from that of another mammal.
First record the position, extent, colour and underlying material of the stain. Keep a portion untouched, take a small scraping or cutting for examination, and test an unstained portion of the same material alongside it. The comparison is important: a coloured fabric, iron oxide or a vegetable colouring substance may resemble dried blood, and the material itself can interfere with a chemical test. Brown colour alone proves nothing.
For an examination practicable in 1867, use complementary observations:
- Moisten a small portion with an appropriate aqueous medium and examine it by microscopy. Recognisable red blood cells support the identification. Oval, nucleated red blood cells would point towards certain non-mammalian sources; human red blood cells are normally non-nucleated discs. Drying and extraction distort the cells, however, and their measured diameters overlap those of other mammals. An apparent match with human red blood cells therefore does not establish human origin.
- Apply the historical haemin crystal test to a separate portion: gently heat the material with acetic acid and a little sodium chloride on a covered microscope slide, then look for the characteristic brown crystalline product. A positive result supports the presence of a hemoglobin derivative. It does not identify the species.
- Where a suitable spectroscope is available, examine an extract for the characteristic absorption spectrum of hemoglobin and the changes produced by altering its chemical state. This adds a different kind of evidence, but the absorption spectrum is again shared by the blood of different species. Spectroscopy of blood was already developing before this examination; it should not be confused with later DNA profiling.[ref]Identification of blood by the National Institute of Justice. Unit II, §§3–6: historical development, microscopic examination, crystal tests and spectral methods
These observations should agree before the examiner expresses a positive conclusion. Failure to recover intact red blood cells does not exclude an old bloodstain; conversely, a colour reaction without suitable controls is weak evidence. A defensible period report would distinguish “blood identified, consistent with mammalian origin” from “human blood proved.” The second conclusion does not follow from the first.
For comparison, later precipitin tests use antibodies against human proteins to investigate species of origin. Modern DNA profiling can investigate the donor, subject to preservation and contamination limits. These are later developments, not procedures to attribute to an Oxford candidate in 1867.[ref]
Confirmatory blood tests by the National Institute of Justice. “Confirmatory Tests”: crystal formation versus human-origin testing with specific antisera