'34 Journal of Agriculture. [lo Nov.. 1910. 



On the other hamh if feeding experiments leave anv doultt as to the 

 character of a phuit, it does very materially help one to arrive at a definite 

 decision, if no symptoms of poisoning can be noted on injection of various 

 extracts prepared with a view to their containing anv poisonous ])rinciples 

 likely to be present in the plant. 



The.se few preliminary remarks are made because the initial steps in 

 determining whether a plant is poisonous can best be done in the district 

 where the plant grows. Unless a plant can definitelv be shown to produce 

 symptoms of poisoning on feeding, it is more than likelv that it is harm- 

 less ; if it is sent to a laboratory for testing, its detailed examination entails 

 much work, with little or no profitable result. 



Feeding experiments, too. are best carried out on the farm where the 

 plant grows, because the collection of material in sufficient quantitv for 

 feeding experiments and its consignment to the laboratorv is costlv. both 

 in time and money. F'urther. the laboratory onlv has the opportunitv of 

 working with the smaller animals — rabbit, goat, and sheep- -whereas it 

 may be in cattle that the poisonous svmptoms develop. Once, howe^•er, 

 there is evidence that a plant is poisonous, then it should be sent to a 

 laboratory, where the facilities for a full studv of the nature and mode of 

 action of its poi.sonous jirinciples are so much greater. 



The following remarks applv to plants which have been investigated in 

 the laboratory, and which appeared to be worth while testing, since thev 

 are widely regarded as poisonous. Fresh material in the requisite quan- 

 tities was obtained from the Agricultural Department through the agency 

 Of the National Herbarium. 



Wild Parsnip, Didhcus pilosus, Benth. {Trachymene ausiraJh. Henth.) 

 - — Thi.s is a nati\e plant regarding which it is stated in the \Y eeds and Poison 

 Plants of Victoria that it "is commonlv supposed to be poisonous, but no 

 exact investigations ha\e been made." This plant at once declared itself 

 as highlv objectionable to the rabbit, sheep, and goat. Xone of these 

 would eat it, even after prolonged starvation. Several rabbits died during 

 the experiments, but the number which survived makes it more than 

 probable that the wild parsnip was not the actual cau.se of death. In these 

 cases, a good deal of margin had to be given, as the animals were wild 

 rabbits, brought into an unnatural state of confinement and subjected to 

 a good denl of handling before arrival at the University. 



The Wild Parsnip contains no alkaloid, and tinctures prepared to con- 

 tain other active principles, such as glucosides, could be subcutaneously 

 injected without anv poisonous symptoms supervening. Four rabbits were 

 also fed bv stomach tube with the juice (and finer floating material) 

 expressed from the finelv minced plant, and the forced feeding was 

 repeated two days later and, in one case, a third time, but no signs of any 

 poisonous action could be noted. 



Steam distillates of the plant also ])ro\((l harmless when subcutaiu'ously 

 injected. A .sheep was akso used in this case. l)ut even after two days 

 wfth no other foodstuffs offered, only i lb. or, at most. 2 lbs. of 

 the \A'ild Parsnip had been eaten. No symptoms were apparent. A goat 

 was induced to take the Wild Parsnip cut finely and thoroughly mixed with 

 cru.shed biscuit. This was continued for three davs, but the animal was 

 alwavs fastidious, anil never ate great amounts. Tt. howe\er. showed not 

 the slightest trace of any ill effects. 



The universal dislike of all the animals experimented upon to this 

 plant, which to the untrained human taste possesses nothing objectionable, 

 made the inxestigation of it a matter of caution. 



