compounds had been extracted from the leaves and were pre- 
sent in the solution (Table 3). 
TABLE 2 
Treatment Phenolic compounds present 
| 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
1. Sun dried ++ ++ ++ +4 ¢4+ ++ F+4+ F4+ 
2. Herbarium dried ++ ++ ¢4+ 44 44+ +4 F¢4+ +4 
3. Water + + + + + + + 
4. 95% Ethanol tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tr 
5. White rum tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tr 
6. FAA ~ = - - = _ 
7. Formalin-water I: 1 = _ = = = 7 = 
8. Formalin —_ i. _ = _ = 
(++ = very positive: + = positive; tr = trace: — = negative) 
TABLE 3 
Treatment Phenolic compounds present 
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
3. Water + + + + + + + + 
4. 95% Ethanol te a Se ee ee ee Sa Oe Se Ce oe 
5. White rum ++ t+ +4 ++ 4¢4+ ++ ++ FF 
6. FAA + + + + + + + + 
7. Formalin-water 1:1 - - - - - 
8. Formalin - = = _ _ = 
As we expected, there is no doubt from the above results 
(Tables 1-3) that, if plant material is to be subjected to chemo- 
taxonomic investigation for flavonoids or closely related 
phenolic compounds, the material must be preserved only by 
sun drying or by subsequent artificial drying. Soaking in pres- 
ervatives containing 95% ethanol, white rum and FAA results 
in changes of cell permeability and consequent leakage of 
phenolic material into the solution (Table 3). Preservatives 
containing formaldehyde in high concentration (nos. 7 & 8), 
which cross link with proteins, carbohydrates and phenolic 
compounds to give insoluble precipitates, show no free pheno- 
lic compounds either in methanolic leaf extracts or in the 
solutions themselves. Water affects the concentration of the 
261 
