SUBSTANCES REPUTED MEDICINAL, 185 
a vague comparison, as the China teas in question may have been 
very common indeed. ‘A little euphorbia, mixed with ordinary 
Congo, gives it quite an Indian flavour.’’ I cannot accept this as a 
fact, but I give the sentence as embodying the experience of one 
who professes to have had much to do with the drug. 
As it belongs to the notoriously poisonous genus Luphordia, 
care should be exercised in its administration. 
There is an excellent article, entitled ‘‘ A Contribution to the 
Study of Luphorbia pilulifera,’ by Dr. A. Marsset of Paris, in 
The Therapeutic Gazette (Detroit, U.S.A.) of February, 1885. It 
is accompanied by a woodcut of the plant, but a much better 
picture (a water-colour drawing from a living plant) is exhibited 
in the Technological Museum. 
While acknowledging that the use of the plant in pulmonary 
complaints is of very recent origin, he gives the following, which 
shows that its use in medicine is byno means recent. Dr. Marsset 
says, ‘‘ Pison (Opera, Amsterdam, 1658) appears to have been the 
first to have spoken of Luphorbia pilulifera from a medical 
standpoint. After having given an exact but incomplete description 
of the plant, he adds, that ‘‘if chewed or freshly bruised leaves are 
applied on a snake-bite, they not only assuage the pain, but even 
remove the venom and heal the wound. A pinch of the dried 
powder, taken in some convenient menstruum, excites the heart 
and arouses the vital forces depressed by the poison.”’ 
Ainslie, in his “‘ Materia Medica’’ (London, 1826), describes, 
under the name of “ Pill-bearing Spurge,’ a plant of India and 
Ceylon, which seems to have been either the Z. pilulifera of 
Brazil, or a kindred species with lilac flowers, ‘‘The native 
physicians,’ he says, ““employ the fresh juice as an outward 
application in aphthous affections.” 
It is doubtful whether the plant alluded to by Lescourtilz (Flore 
Meéd. des Antillas, Paris, 1821), which he calls Z. prlulzfera, and 
an infusion of which is recommended by him as a “lenitive 
ptisan in gonorrhcea, be really the botanical species under con- 
sideration ; his description would, in fact, make it probable that 
he had in mind another species.” . . . The leaves have been 
compared to those of spearmint and pellitory, but are a little 
