1888-89.] Dr Thomas R. Fraser on Strophanthus hispidus. 73 
Strophanthus hispidus : its Natural History, Chemistry, 
and Pharmacology. By Dr Thomas R. Fraser. 
(Abstract) 
(Read February 4, 1889.) 
A. Natural History . 
In February 1870, the author made a communication to this Society 
on the Kombe Arrow-Poison of Africa, a product of the Strophanthus 
hispidus plant. In that communication the nature of its action on 
the various structures of the body, and the chemical composition of 
the seeds of the plant, which are the most active part, were 
described. It was pointed out that the action is chiefly exerted 
upon the heart and upon the muscles of the body, and that the 
seeds contain a crystalline active principle of the nature of a 
glucoside, to which the name Strophanthin was given. 
From the examination then made of the action of the seeds of 
this Strophanthus , as well as of its active principle, strophanthin, 
it was anticipated that Strophanthus would prove to he of great 
value in the treatment of disease, and especially of disease of the 
heart ; and a few years later the author employed it for this purpose 
in a small number of cases. 
Various circumstances, such as the difficulty in procuring suf- 
ficient supplies of the seeds, prevented the author from making 
the number of observations that appeared to he necessary before the 
value of Strophanthus in the treatment of disease could he properly 
estimated; and it was not until 1885 that sufficient evidence had 
been obtained to authorise any public announcement on the subject. 
In the interval of fifteen years which elapsed between the first 
communication to this Society and the communication of 1885 to 
the British Medical Association, the subject attracted so little atten- 
tion that only two papers were published on it. 
One of these papers dealt with the physiological action, and con- 
firmed the statements made in the communication to this Society. 
The second paper dealt only with the chemical composition of the 
Strophanthus seeds, but the chief statements it contained, such as 
that the active principle is not a glucoside, have since been amply 
shown to be erroneous. 
