RESULTS OF EXAMINATIONS. 25 



EXAMINATION OF THE ROSIN. 



A sample of H rosin had a specific gravity of 1 .078 ; acid number, 

 142.7; saponification number, 152.6; ether number, 9.9. The rosin 

 distilled at 250 to 275 at 30 mm. pressure. The viscous distillate 

 hardened to a light yellow, amorphous mass on cooling. Attempts 

 to secure a crystalline resin acid from the original rosin and its 

 distillation product were unsuccessful. 



CONCLUSIONS. 



\ 



From the distillation data it has been estimated that the volatile 

 oil of the sugar pine consists of 70 to 75 per cent d-a-pinene; about 

 5 per cent /?-pinene ; 2 to 3 per cent of a terpene, probably phellan- 

 drene; 2 to 3 per cent of what appears to be an aliphatic hydrocarbon; 

 and 10 to 12 per cent of a sesquiterpene which agrees well in its 

 properties with those of "aromadendrene." The portions of the oil 

 boiling between 170 to 210 C. should be investigated further. 



Pinus Contorta Loud. 

 LITERATURE. 



Blasdale 1 examined the oil obtained from oleoresin scraped from 

 peeled lodgepole pines (Pinus murrayana). 2 He states that the 

 major portion of the" oil distilled between 158 and 160, but portions 

 boiled as high as 180. The fraction boiling between 158 and 160 

 had a specific gravity of 0.8640; an index of refraction of 1.4765; and 

 specific rotation, [a] D = 15 23'. Without further examination the 

 oil is stated to " consist of terpenes." 



EXAMINATION OF THE OLEORESIN. 



The crude material which was examined by the author had a 

 specific gravity of 1.0210 and gave on analysis the following per- 

 centages : 



Per cent. 



Volatile oil 14. 7 



Rosin (grade I or sixth grade) 77. 7 



Chips, needles, etc 2. 5 



Water (by difference) 5. 1 



Total 100. 



The oleoresin was very dark, stringy, and badly contaminated with 

 needles, chips, and fine dirt. It foamed excessively on distillation with 

 steam, and the last traces of oil were removed only with difficulty. 



i Jour. Am. Chem. Soc., pp. 163-164, vol. 23, 1901. 



> A distinction is no longer maintained between Pinus contorta and Pinus murrayana. 



