96 REPORT OF SCHIMMEL 8 Co. APRIL 1914. 
From the turpentine of Cedrus Libanotica’), L. Reutter*) has prepared an essential k. 
oil by steam distillation in the presence of potassium hydroxide. The oil possesses 
the following properties: djs0 0,8802, ap — 13° 36’, npx0 1,48567. It contains borneol 
«mie -p7203.°): j 
In another publication, Reutter*) refers to turpentine oil from Pinus brutia, Ten., 
which also contains borneol. He obtained about 16 p.c. of this oil from the turpentine. 
A. W. Schorger*) reports on the resin of the “Jeffrey” and “Single leaf pines” 
(Pinus Jeffreyi, A. Murr. and P. monophylla, Torr.). The turpentine from Pinus monophylla 
contained 19 p.c. of a volatile oil possessing the following ‘characters: dis50 0,8721 to 
0,8733, @px0 + 14,41 to + 17,260°, npis0 1,4732 to 1,4733. The oil distilled over between 
155,9 and 190°. It contained about 80 to 85 p.c. d-«-pinene (nitrolpiperidine, m. p. 118°), 
also 4 to 5 p.c. J- or i-limonene (dihydrochloride, m.p. 49°) and from 4 to 6 p.c. 
d-cadinene (@p:;0 -+- 10,58°; dihydrochloride, m.p.117 to 118°). In the turpentine oil 
from Pinus Jeffreyi (yield 8,81 to 11,25 p.c.; diso 0,6951 to 0,7110; npis0 1,3927 to 1,4060) 
Schorger, corroborating Blasdale’s statements®), found about 95 p.c. n-heptane, and in 
addition thereto about 5 p.c. of an aldehyde, b. p. 200 to 215°: diso 0,8578, a&p20 —2,5°, 
Np»0 1,4570. The semicarbazone had m.p. 91 to 92°. It was impossible, for want 
of material, to prepare other derivatives. Schorger suspects the aldehyde to be 
citronellal. 
On p.112 of our Report of October 1912 we reported on a control-test of Walbum’s 
method of testing larch-turpentine (Venetian turpentine) which has been carried out by 
us. We advised against the making of claims based upon Walbum’s test. S.C. Stintola), 
who has made investigations with numerous samples of different samples turpentine, i 
has arrived at the same conclusion as ourselves, namely that Walbum’s method cannot i 
be recommended for the examination of larch turpentine. ! 
we 4 eet Oe Br ~ 
E. H. French and J. J. R. Withrow’), in a detailed article, pass into review the 
present state of the so-called wood turpentine industry‘), which may safely be said to 
be very bad indeed. The authors give three reasons for this state of things: 1) the 
lack of practical, scientific engineers experienced in this or analogous fields; 2) financing 
for the sale of stock and securities rather than product. 3) Lack of efficient marketing 
organisation. Furthermore, the oil is prepared by many widely-different methods, so 
that no uniform product is supplied, which increases the cost of selling. Up to the 
present it is probable that sufficiently classified oils have been sold only to the 
U. S. Navy. So far those engaged in the industry have taken no. interest in the 
establishment of a standard for wood turpentine, in spite of the fact that a few years i 
ago the manufacturers who worked the steam-process, now almost obsolete, were 
making efforts in this direction. 
The speculative movements of the Naval Stores market formerly were very favour- 
able to the development of the wood turpentine industry. The prices of wood turpentine 
were fixed according to the quotations of gum turpentine oil; hence, so long as the 
turpentine oil prices rose or kept high, it was possible to lay down at great expense 
1) Presumably the Lebanon cedar, Cedrus Libani, Barr. is here meant. We cannot trace a Cedrus 
Libanotica, either in the Index Kewensis or in Beissner’s Handbuch der Nadelholzkunde, Il. Ed. Berlin 1909. — 
2) Schweiz. Wochenschr. f. Chem. u. Pharm. 51 (1913), 472. — %) Ibidem 492. — *) Journ. ind. eng. Chemistry 5 
(1913), 971. The author has kindly sent us a reprint. — 5) Journ. Americ. chem. Soc. 28 (1901), 162; Pharm. 
Review 25 (1907), 363. — °) Pharm. Zentrath. 55 (1914), 2. — *) Journ. ind. eng. Chemistry 6 (1914), 148. — 
8) Comp. Gildemeister und Hoffmann, Die dtherischen Ole, 2..Ed. Vol. li. p. 100. 
