1888 .] Mr Dott and Dr Stockman on Morphine. 
133 
arrived at by Wright, and our experiments are therefore described 
in the present paper. 
(1) Chlorococlide . — This substance was prepared exactly in the 
manner described by Matthiessen and Wright. Although white or 
nearly so when freshly precipitated, it became of a pale green colour 
on exposure to the air. The chloroplatinate dried at 120°, yielded 
on ignition 18’43 percent. Pt. Wright obtained 18*60 percent. Pt. 
The percentage required by the formula C3gH4oCl2N'204.PtH2Clg, is 
18*81. On uniting the first and third fractions obtained in puri- 
fying the base, the mixture gave a chloroplatinate which yielded 
17*97 per cent. Pt. As regards physiological action, the second 
fraction nearly resembled apomorphine, while the mixed fractions 
rather approached codeine in its action on animals. The fact that 
the so-called chlorocodide and its hydrochloride are non-crystalline, 
shows that it is something other than a mixture of apomorphine 
and codeine, and that conclusion is confirmed by the analytical 
results. These results, however, indicate that chlorocodide is not 
obtained in the pure state by the authorised process, and that the 
substance is probably a mixture of bases, most likely of a chlo- 
rinated and non-chlorinated base. Indeed, it is very difficult to derive 
any definite information from an amorphous mixture, such as that 
produced by the action of hydrochloric acid on morphine or codeine. 
There is really no evidence to prove that a compound containing 
1 atom of chlorine to 34 atoms of carbon has been formed from 
morphine, or that a similar product has been obtained from codeine. 
(2) Acetylmorpliine . — Wright describes four acetyl derivatives 
as obtained by him from morphine. At present we are only con- 
cerned with the monoacetyl compound, represented by the formula 
C34Hg>;r(C2H30)N20g- It was prepared by the action of acetic 
anhydride on morphine, “when a considerably smaller quantity” of 
the anyhdride is taken than is required to form diacetylmorphine. 
The product “resembles /^-diacetylmorphine in every particular, 
save that it yields different numbers on analysis.” The numbers 
given by Wright agree only fairly well with theory. “ That the 
substance is truly a monoacetyl morphine, and not a mixture of 
morphine and diacetyl derivatives, is shown by the fact that the 
base itself is soluble in ether j whereas morphine is practically not 
soluble in that menstruum. Moreover, a mixture of ^-diacetyl- 
