May 3, 1887.] 



tHE TROPICAL AORICULTURIST. 



733 



lized,' it is dipped into the same syrup, but is then 

 cooled and dried slowly in a kiln or chamber warmed 

 to a temperature of 91 deg. Fahrenheit. This slow 

 cooling causes the thick syrup with which the fruit 

 is covered to crystallize and assume the usual granulated 

 appearance. The work is now finished. If properly 

 done, the fruit thus preserved will bear transportation 

 to any climate, and will keep, firm and unchanged, 

 for years. It is packed in light wooden or cardboard 

 boxes, and may be shipped in cases containing several 

 hundred pounds each." — Frodnce Markets' Review. 



DE. GEORGE WATT, CLE., ON "GANJA." 



At the evening meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society 

 held in November, Dr. "Watt, in speaking of the propa- 

 gation of g luja, stated that native experts \. -tu em- 

 ployed to go through the fields in order to cut dosvn 

 the male plants while they were in the young state ; 

 and that if one single male flower were left in a 

 whole field cultivated for ganja, not a single particle 

 of ganja would be produced, but that bhang would be 

 the result. 



A Demarara correspondent (Mr. T. W. Hutton, of 

 George-town), writing on this subject, says: — 



" If such is the case, can you afford any explanation 

 regarding the presence of fertile seeds in the accom- 

 panying sample of ganja, which is considered by the 

 East Indiin dealers here to be a very good one ? 

 It is received here in original packages from Calcutta, 

 and is labelled 'Ganja.'" 



We have submitted the sample to Dr. Watt, and 

 he has sent us the following reply, dated ''India 

 Office, February 16":— 



" Sir, — 1 had much pleasure in receiving your letter 

 forwarding a specimen of 'ganja' for my inspection, 

 and asking me for further information to what I 

 gave at a meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society re- 

 garding that narcotic. I was not permitted to see 

 the proof of my remarks made at that meeting, and, 

 having a pressing engagement that night, 1 had to 

 leave before the close of the proceedings. From both 

 these considerations I was unable to correct a defect 

 in what appeared in the Journal. In the first place, 

 I seem to have forgotten to conclude my remarks 

 with what, after all, was the important point, namely, 

 that the ' ganja' made in all other provinces is in- 

 ferior to that produced in Bengal. The Act regulat- 

 ing the trade in 'ganja' is only enforced to its full 

 extent in Bengal, and hence the 'ganja' of other 

 provinces costs only about one-twentieth of the 

 Bengal. In Bengal a licence has to be taken out to 

 grow, to trade, and to retail the article ; and, over 

 and above these chai-ges, the ' ganja ' produced has 

 to be stored in the Government 'golahs,' and when 

 removed has to pay a duty of 10*-. for |every two 

 pounds. Naturally only the very purest article goes 

 into the ' golahs; ' adulteration, it it takes place at all, 

 occurs in the retail merchant's shop, for while in 

 the bands of the wholesale dealer it passes under a 

 sealed permit. Every stage of the cultivation is care- 

 fully supervised, and in no instance are the male 

 plants allowed to grow up with the female, since it 

 has been ascertained that when fecundation occurs 

 the 'ganja' is injured and greatly diminished. The 

 sample you sent with mature seeds cannot possibly 

 be Bengal ' ganja.' In the second place, I should have 

 liked to correct a mistake made by a Bombay gentle- 

 man who spoke at the Society's meeting after my 

 departure. He referred to purchasing Bengal ' ganja' 

 in Bombay, I venture to think not one ounce of 

 ' ganja' ever goes to Bombay. We have no record of 

 'permits' to Bombay and no 'ganja' can leave the 

 Bengal stores without a permit. Again< the ' ganja ' from 

 the Central provinces and that grown in the Bombay 

 presidencies is sold in Bombay for about Is. a pound, 

 whereas Bengal 'ganja' costs not less than iOs. a 

 pound. It is thus conclusive that the Bombay 'ganja' 

 cannot be Bengal produce. 



"In a paper I read the other day at the Society 

 of Arts, I recommended chemi^te desirous of making 

 the viiry best extract of Indian hemp to pay the full 



price for Beugai 'gaoja,' aud tQ ioiport tbe article 



from Calcutta instead of from Bombay, when there 

 would be every chance that the defects complained of 

 in the extract as now prepared would disappear com- 

 pletely. 



" I observe in your letter that you say the sample 

 of ' ganja ' sent for my inspection was obtained 

 from a shipment from Calcutta. There is no record 

 of any ' ganja ' having been exported from Calcutta to 

 England. Naturally the difference in price would be 

 prohibitive, or be sufficient to tempt an unjust 

 trader in declaring a consignment as having come 

 from Calcutta when in reality it came from Bombay. 

 Be assured of one point, — while we cannot absolutely 

 prevent smuggling from one province to another, 

 since all the Bengal ' ganja ' is kept in a secure 

 store, none of it can leave that store or ' golah ' for 

 England or for any other country or province except 

 under a permit, and only then after paying the duty 

 It is therefore possible to speak with absolute cer- 

 tainty as to whether or not any shipments of ' ganja ' left 

 Calcutta for England or Bombay. — I am, yours truly, 

 " Geo. Watt." — Chemist and Druggist. 



ON QUININE SULPHATE MANUFACTURED 



BY THE AUTHORS OF THE 



DISCOVERY OF QUININE, PELLETIER 



AND CAVENTON. 



BY DK. J. E. DE VRY, CLE. 



At the evening meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society 

 held on Febuary 9, 1887, Dr. Paul read a paper, " The 

 Tests of Quinine Sulphate," published on page 645 

 of the Fltarni. Journ. of February 12 last, in which 

 the following sentence struck my attention : — " When 

 we call to mind the fact that cinchonidine is almost 

 always associated with quinine in the bark from which 

 quinine sulphate is manufactureil, and also the fact 

 that up to the year 1844, cinchonidine was not 

 known as an independent substance distinct from qui- 

 nine, it will be evident that there is, on these grouuds 

 alone, very good reason for believing that prior to 

 the date mentioned the article known as quinine sul- 

 phate was really a mixture of the sulphates of quinine 

 and cinchonidine. It would be possible to mention 

 in support of this view many circumstances recorded 

 by trustworthy observers, but I will merely refer to 

 the fact lately made known hj/ Dr. de Vri/, that the 

 quinine sulphate originally vianvfactitred hi/ Pelletier 

 contained a considerahle amount of cinchonidine." 



As I had the honour to be personally acquainted 

 in 1835 with Pelletier, I am indebted to his memory 

 to protest strongly against the underlined assertion. 

 I really cannot conceive how the editor of the Pharm. 

 Journ., Dr. Paul, could make such a statement, for in 

 his capacity of editor and reader of German periodicals, 

 he should have been ^better informed by the paper 

 of Dr. G. Vulpius, in No. 29 of the Pharmaceutische 

 Centralhalle of. July 22, 1886, p. 345. But whatever 

 this be, the editor of the Chemist and Druggist 

 can convince himself that I have said quite the contrary 

 in the lecture which I delivered on November 3 ,1886 

 to the Academie de Medecine in Paris, of which 

 I sent him a copy, as also to Dr. Attfleld, and some 

 others of my English friends. In that paper I stated 

 the following; — 



"Since the discovery of quinine in 1820, chemistry 

 and its application to chemical industry have made 

 immense p^ogre^s, and vfe should consequently have 

 the right to expect that the quality of the actual 

 quinine sulphate was at least as good as in the time 

 of the discovery of quinine. Thanks to the kindness 

 of M. Genevois, Director of the Pharmacie Centrals 

 de France, I was put last May in possession of a 

 specimen of calisaya bark from the collection of 

 Pelletier himself, from which I obtained 64 per cent 

 of quinine tartrate. The optical observation proved 

 that it contained 954 per cent of quinine tartrate 

 and 4-5 per cent of cinchonidine tartrate, which al" 

 kaloid was unknown in Pelletier's time. Therefore 

 the quinine sulphate manufactured from such barks 

 could not have contained more than Z2i^ per cent of (in^ 

 ch^nidim sulphate," 



