74 



MEMOIRS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 



The three preparations last described were made by extraction with the same dilute potash 

 solution, and under essentially the same conditions in all respects, with the single difference that, 

 while in case of 17 the oats were directly treated with this solvent, 18 was extracted by potash 

 solution after the ground oats had been kept in contact with water for one hour, and 19 after 

 digestion with water for twenty-four hours. 



The amount of proteid extracted in the first instance was 7.80 grams (17). 



The amount of proteid extracted in the second instance was 4.25 grams (18). 



The amount of proteid extracted in the third instance was 2.55 grams (19). 



The composition of the three preparations is placed in comparison with that of the oat 

 globulin 13 in the subjoined statement. 



The experiments just detailed tend to show that the action of water upon the crushed oat 

 kernel induces rapid changes of composition in these proteids simultaneously with their conver- 

 sion into insoluble modifications. 



They also indicate that the globulin itself is a result of changes brought about in the presence 

 of water and is not a body existing as such, ready-formed, in the oats. 



6. NORTON'S AVENINE AND KREUSLER'S OAT LEGUMIN. 



The substance extracted directly by potash solution without previous exposure of the oats to 

 water, 17, is probably the same as that which Johnston and Norton originally termed aveiiine, 

 and which the latter obtained by digesting ground oats in water to which a little ammonia was 

 added to prevent souring, as the weather was very warm.* The preparation which Norton ana- 

 lyzed as avenine was, however, extracted by water alone, and was accordingly a mixture.! Both 

 Norton and Kreusler applied weak alkali solution to the extraction of proteid bodies from oats 

 after the ground grain had been subjected to the action of water. 



Norton made and analyzed two preparations, accomplishing the extraction by means of dilute 

 ammonia, and threw down the proteid by adding acetic acid to The ammoniacal solution. One 

 preparation, "A," was redissolved in strong ammonia at nearly the boiling point, and again pre- 

 cipitated by acetic acid, then washed (presumably with water) and boiled in alcohol and ether 

 until no more fatty matter was taken up. Another preparation, "B," was boiled in alcohol and 

 ether be/ore redissolving in very dilute ammonia at 70° to 80° C. 



Norton made a single analysis of A and two fairly accordant analyses of B, the average of 

 which is the basis for the corrected analysis given below. He found in both substances 1 per cent 

 of phosphorus, which he includes in the analyses reckoned ash free. This phosphorus in A nearly 

 equals, and in B exceeds, the ash. If this phosphorus be deducted and the analyses recalculated 

 to a percentage statement, we have the corrected analyses given below. As Norton published no 

 analytical details and used a method of doubtful accuracy (Berthier's) for estimating phosi^horus, 

 this correction is perhaps not altogether satisfactory. Norton's nitrogen determinations were all 

 by Dumas's method. He gives to this substance no special name, but designates it as a " protein 

 body" simply. 



•Am. .7. Sci. [2] 5,23. 



