Page images
PDF
EPUB

November. Item which produced that being reproduced o

Memorandum. Chinchona succirubra.—No. 1. Bark of three years and five months' growth, thickened by the application of moss. No. 2. Renewed bark of one year and five months' growth, being reproduced on the same portion of a stem which produced the bark given to Doctor de Vrij in November, 1863, and from which that gentleman obtained 8:409 per cent. of alkaloid. No. 3. Renewed bark of one year's growth, and gathered from portions of the stem which yielded No. 1 bark, submitted to Mr. Howard in the spring of 1864. No. 4. Bark of two years and five months' growth, not thickened by the application of moss.

Chinchona Calisaya.— No. 5. Bark of two years and five months' growth.

Chinchona Condaminea.—No. 6. Bark of one year and seven months' growth.

Chinchona micrantha.—No. 7. Bark of two years and five months' growth, thickened by the application of moss. No. 8. Ditto of same growth, but not thickened by the application of moss.

(Signed) W. G. M'Ivor, Superintendent of the Government Chinchona Plantations.

Report of an Analysis of the Fourth Remittance of Bark from India. From J. E. Howard, Esq., F.L.S., to the Under Secretary of State for India,

August 1st, 1865. Sir,—I have the honour to report that I received, and have during the past month devoted much careful attention to the analysis of eight specimens of bark, referred to in a letter from Madras, dated 3rd May, 1865. The whole of the samples were in excellent condition, showing the care and skill bestowed on their cultivation. They contrasted most favourably with specimens from South America, of bark used at the present moment in the extraction of quinine. The mode of analysis I have followed, in the present instance, is that which is employed to ascertain the commercial value, which rests almost entirely with the crystallizable sulphates, with perhaps some slight loss of the residuary product. The results will compare well with those given in Delondre's • Quinologie.'

No. 1 gave of crystallized sulphate, per 100 parts . . . . . . . . 6:00

of alkaloid soluble in ether (sp. gr. •720) . . . . . . . 0.94

of alkaloid insoluble in the above (therefore Chinchonine) . 1.06 Mem.--The sulphate refined into white sulphate of quinine in appearance,

but this did not stand the test used for commercial sulphate of

quinine. No. 2 gave of crystallized sulphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00

of alkaloid soluble in ether . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.90

of alkaloid insoluble in ether. (Chinchonine) . . . . . 1.80 Mem.-Refined as above. No. 3 gave of crystallized sulphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:72

of alkaloids soluble in alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . 7.00 Mem.-As I could only submit to examination 165 grains of the bark, the

above result must be taken with reserve. No. 4 gave of crystallized sulphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:43

of alkaloid soluble in ether. .....203

of alkaloid insoluble in ether. (Chinchonine) .... 0:60 Mem.—This specimen gave a product not refining quite so well as No. 1. No. 5 gave of crystallized sulphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0:70

of alkaloid soluble in ether ........... 0:10 of alkaloid soluble in ether, but crystallized by evaporation . 0.26

of alkaloid insoluble in ether. (Chinchonine) . . . . a trace. Mem.—This sulphate did not stand the ether test. No. 6 gave of crystallized sulphate ............. 090

of alkaloid soluble in ether . . . . . . . . . . . . 0:60

of alkaloid insoluble in ether. (Chinchonine) .... a trace. Mem.-The tests showed Quinine and Chinchonidine. No. 7 gave of crystallized sulphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.82

of alkaloid soluble in ether. (Aricine) . ..... 029

of alkaloid insoluble in ether. (Chinchonine) .. .. . 039 Mem.—This sulphate is that of commercial Quinidine, and contains probably

no Quinine. No. 8 gave of crystallized sulphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.26

of alkaloid soluble in ether . . . . . . . . . . . . 0:60

of alkaloid insoluble in ether. (Chinchonine) .... a trace. Mem. The product similar to that of No. 7.

I beg to direct special attention to the remark, that the fine white crystallized Sulphate of Quinine (apparently) made from the bark of C. succirubra will not stand the test which is employed to distinguish the pure article in commerce. The cause of this I stated in my first report, viz. that “the crystallizations obtained are mixed with some Sulphate of Chinchonidine, which is commercially (but not medicinally) a disadvantage, and one which always attends the products of red bark.” It is, of course, possible to separate the Chinchonidine, but then this must very seriously diminish the percentage of six per cent. I obtained from this gross product little more than four per cent. refined in the first instance (though more subsequently), and of this I ascertained about ten per cent. as Chinchonidine. This difficulty must be looked steadily in the face, and I would suggest that it may be obviated, either by a change being wrought in the opinion of the medical world as to the value of Chinchonidine as a medicine, or by the plant being encouraged to produce Quinine instead of Chinchonidine.

The first might be, very probably, the result of a commission of inquiry composed of competent medical practitioners. I may mention that the late Dr. Royle entered zealously, at my suggestion, into the question, and satisfied himself by experiment as to the value of Chinchonidine, but I am not aware that he left any written record of the result he attained. My own experiments confirm this view of the question, and I have shown* that this alkaloid (which must not be confounded with Chinchonine) must have constituted (in whole or in part) the therapeutic agent in the cure of the Countess of Chinchon, as also that it was the alkaloid successfully employed at Philadelphia. The second alternative may seem visionary at first sight, but when we consider the results at which Mr. M'Ivor has arrived, and, further, the circumstances under which Chinchonidine is produced, this view of the case may be altered.

In No. 7, we have an illustration of what careful cultivation will do, as the plant C. micrantha, which (with its congeners the Grey Barks) produces largely aud chiefly Chinchonine in its native climate of Huanucot, now produces a very small portion of Chinchonine, and a large quantity of the allied alkaloid Quinidine. This is, then, a hopeful .change, if time should confirm the observation.

Then Chinchonidine seems almost always to accompany Quinine in greater or less abundance. It does so in the Calisaya of Bolivia, in the lancifolia barks of New Granada, and in various barks of Ecuador and Peru, and markedly in the best of the barks of Loxa. It is highly probable that a very slight circumstance in the growth may determine the production of one or other alkaloid. Dr. Herapath has shown in a communication to the Royal Society, “ Researches on the Chinchona Alkaloids,"* that the Quinine and Chinchonidine salts agree closely among themselves, and differ widely from the Quinidine and Chinchonine compounds.

* “Illustration of Nueva Quinologia,' sub voce Chaluarguera."

A peculiar climate, of which I have recorded Mr. Pritchett's description under head C. micrantha.

I may further remark, that the Chinchona succirubra is a tree which varies greatly in its products in its native forests, and that the Chinchona micrantha, in Bolivia, approaches to the character of a Calisaya, as I have noticed under that head; its bark has a different appearance from that of Huanuco, and, again, this now sent home varies widely from either of the above. I notice, in examination, the peculiar yellow colouring-matter common, it seems, to all the forms of this species (C. micrantha), as I have before noticed.

The Calisaya bark sent this time by Mr. M'Ivor is, I fear, an illustration of the possibility of change in the wrong direction, as it contains far too large a percentage of Chinchonidine in proportion to the Quinine. The appearance of the bark indicates a not very vigorous growth, or, at all events, it differs from that it assumes in its vative locality. It would never be recognized as the bark of Chinchona Calisaya.

The bark of No. 6 is recognized by an experienced dealer as “thin rusty crown, worth ls. 3d. to 1s. 4d. per lb.”+ It is, I presume, the bark of the variety Bonplandiana, i.e. the colorada del Rey, as brought home by Cross; it is remarked as more red than is customary with rusty crown.

As the quantity of bark in No. 1 and No. 4 was not exhausted in my experiments, I have returned 1000 grains of each of these, thinking that it would be a satisfaction to the Government to engage Dr. de Vrij, whose chemical skill and experience are so well known, in further researches on the subject.--I have, etc.

John Eliot HOWARD.

* Dated 19th June, 1857.

+ From Messrs. Jenkin and Phillips to Mr. J. E. Howard.—"51, Lime Street, 21st July, 1865.- The sample of bark you left with us appears to be thin rusty crown, worth 1s. 3d. to 1s. 4d. per lb. We thank you for the sight of it.”

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRITISH LICHENOLOGY; BEING

NOTICES OF NEW OR RARE SPECIES OBSERVED
SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF MUDD'S “MANUAL.'

By Isaac CARROLL, Esq.
(Concluded from Vol. III. p. 293.)

II. Pyrenopsis hæmatopis (Smmrf.), Nyl. Lich. Scand. p. 288.-Rocks on Ben Lawers, rare (Jones).

P. diffundens, Nyl. in litt. n. sp.—Maidstone, Kent (Jones). In the September number of the 'Journal of Botany' this plant was incorrectly named Collema diffractum, Nyl.,” which is a very different plant, not yet found (so far as I am aware) in Britain.

Collema chalazanum, Ach. Nyl. Syn. Lich. p. 104.=C. maritimum, Tayl. ms.- Near Dunkerron, Kerry (Mr. J. Taylor in Herb. Jones); on limestone near Fermoy (Mr. T. Chandlee in Herb. Lindsay, commun. by Carroll).-Spores 8 in thecæ, ellipsoid, simple.

C. biatorinum, Nyl. Syn. Lich. p. 110.—Maidstone, Kent (Jones). C. psorellum, Nyl. in litt. n. sp.-On rocks, Ben Lawers (Jones).

Leptogerum lacerum (Sw.), var. crenatum, Nyl.=Leptogium fragrans, Mudd, Man. p. 46.-Yorkshire (Mudd in Herb. Carroll).

Calicium trichiale, Ach., var. cinereum, Pers.-On old Pines at the Deer Park, Castlemartyr, co. Cork, and on old Oak at Tervoe, near Limerick (Carroll).

C. cur'um, Borr.-On old Pines, Deer Park, Castlemartyr, co. Cork (Carroll).

The Calicia are rarely met with in Ireland.
Stereocaulon nanum, Ach.—Learmount, co. Derry (Jones).

Cetraria Islandica, (L.)— Very rare in Ireland. Re-discovered in Angust, 1865, on Mangerton (Dr. Taylor's station) by Vice-Admiral Jones.

Platysma commixtum, Nyl. Lich. Scand. p. 83.—On rocks, north side of Ben Lawers, July, 1864 (Carroll).

Physcia speciosa (Wulf.), Fr.-Glenarm, co. Antrim (Dr. Moore).

Umbilicaria hyperborea, Hffm.=Gyrophora proboscidea, c. corrugata, Mudd, Man. p. 118.—Brandon, Kerry (Dr. Moore).

U. polyphylla (L.), Schrad.-Rocks at Luggela, co. Wicklow (Jones).

« PreviousContinue »