Introduction 23 



carduus, erechtites, guaco, hypericum, laburnum, 

 ocimum, polyporus, spiraea, or usnea? Why should 

 the Eclectics worry along in this late day with 

 adansonia, alstonia, arum, boldo, coto, damiana, 

 hepatica, monesia, polypodium, sarracenia, or tril- 

 lium? 



These things, and many others, are dead dead 

 because the profession forgot them years ago, and 

 they died of inanition. They simply fell down in 

 practice, and they should be deleted from our lit- 

 erature. 



Nevertheless, we should not be obsessed with the 

 idea that because a botanic drug does not have a 

 host of physiological, especially toxic, actions it is 

 useless. 



If some minor botanic drug does one thing superla- 

 tively well, we should preserve it for that one quality. 

 Oil of chenopodium does kill the hookworm. What 

 more can we ask? Emetine does kill amebae. Why 

 expect it to be useful in a host of other things? 

 Agar-agar has no physiological action whatever, 

 yet it is a valuable mechanical laxative. Cotarnine 

 arrests uterine hemorrhage in congestive conditions. 

 Why expect it to be useful in post-partum hemor- 

 rhage? Filmaron, derived from male fern, kills the 

 tapeworm; that is all. Why expect more of it? 

 Phloridzin is a poor antiperiodic, but it is highly 

 useful as a means for testing the functional activity 

 of the kidney. 



Some one or two defined purposes actually accom- 

 plished by a drug should include it in our lists; but 

 a drug reputed to do fifty things, but none of them 

 well, should be deleted, or so I believe. 



