193 
alkaloid soluble in ether-chloroform) was quite negligible and 
when treated with diluted sulphuric acid and Mayer’s reagent 
added gave no precipitate. The quantity of powdered seed 
operated upon was 7°5 grammes; this powder was quite free 
from bitterness. 
“‘T conclude that the seeds contain no strychnine, brucine, or 
other alkaloid soluble in ether-chloroform; or at least that the 
quantity of alkaloid must be so very minute that it cannot be 
detected in the quantity of seed used with the process adopted.” 
It would appear that the seeds of S. Nua-blanda had previously 
been subjected to analysis, for Mr. J. Small’s ‘ Note on False 
Nux-vomica Seed ’ (see Pharm. Journ. xxxvi. ser. iv. April 12, 
1913, p. 510), from Burma no doubt refers to this species. He 
was unable to detect any strychnine in the seed. 
The specific name Nuz-blanda has been given to this new 
species to indicate both its long confusion with S$. Nua-vomica 
and the absence of alkaloids in seeds. 
With reference to the var. hirsuta, Pierre realised he was 
dealing with an undescribed species, and gave his plant the MS. 
name of S. ranconensis (on the sheets at Paris), which has never 
65. S. ligustrina, Blume in Rumphia, i. p. 68. t. 25; Rumph. 
Amb. 2. p. 121. t. 38; Mal. Breyn. l.c. 19 t. 5. f. 2.; A. DC. 
- Nuz-vomica, Benth. quoad syn. in Journ. Linn. Soe. i. p. 
non Linn. cf. etiam C. B. Clarke in Hook. f. Flor. Brit. Ind. iv. 
pP- 90 in adnot. S. Nua-vomicae. . Nua-vomica, L., 
depawperata, Miq. Flor. Ned. Ind. ii. p. 378 (?). S. colubrina, 
auct. plur. non Linn. nec Wight nec Van Roy. S. muricata, 
Kostel in Miq. Flor. Ned. Ind. ii. p. 380; DC. Prodr. ix. p. 15. 
_Trwor. Coepang, R. Brown (1803) in herb. mus. Brit. ; 
Timor, Zippel; Koepang, Teysmann 8969; Spanoghe, Kajve 
Oclar (19, 1911. 32) in herb. Mus. Lugd. Bat. . 
As was pointed out in Kew Bull. 1911, pp. 286, 287, S. ligus- 
trina and S. lucida appear to be very closely allied, and it may 
that we are dealing with only a single species. S. ligustrina, 
Bl., is described as a tree and S. lucida, R. Br., as a shrub, but 
© specimens sent to Kew from the Walsh River, Queensland, 
appear to be a tree if the wood specimen at the Imperial Insti- 
tute (see under S. lucida) really belongs to the Walsh River 
specimen. 
S. lucida and S. ligustrina can scarcely be separated on leaf 
and floral characters. In their fruits and seeds, etc., they 
show considerable affinity to S. Nuz-vomica. | : 
