190 
The Annual Report of Philipp Roder, Wien, asserts that the ash 
content of extract of belladonna root is two or three times that of 
the extract of belladonna leaf, and suggests that this might serve to 
differentiate the two. — Pharm. Zentralh., 1906, v. 47, p. 481. 
Caesar and Loretz report that the alkaloid content of belladonna 
root varies considerably, different samples within a single year vary- 
ing from 0.07 to 0.94 per cent of alkaloid. They outline a method 
of assay for belladonna root and also suggest the estimation of the 
moisture content. — Geschafts-Ber. v. Caesar and Loretz, 1906, pp. 
45-46, 108-109. 
Evans Sons Lesclier and Webb point out that the assay process of 
the Ph. Brit. IV for the liquid extract of belladonna can be satis- 
factorily worked by first shaking out the emulsifying bodies with 
chloroform from an acidulated solution. — Analytical Notes for 1906, 
1907, p. 8. 
Perry, M. J., suggests a method for the assay of fluid extract of 
belladonna by the use of Wagner's reagent, which he says is easier 
and quicker than either the Ph. Brit, or the U. S. P. method. — Chem. 
& Drug., Bond., 1906, v. 69, p. 839. 
Graham, Willard, reports that of 7 samples of belladonna root ex- 
amined two were below the required standard of 0.50 per cent of my- 
driatic alkaloids. — Proc. Pennsylvania Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 153. 
Vanderkleed, Charles E., reports the assay of 8 lots of belladonna 
root which averaged 0.545 per cent of mydriatic alkaloids. Three 
samples assayed below the required 0.5 per cent. — Proc. Pennsylvania 
Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 122. 
Francis, John M., asserts that several bales of poke root were sold 
as belladonna root. — Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 1906, v. 54. p. 334. 
BENZALDEHYDUM. 
A paper on the new pharmacopoeia, read before the Detroit Acad- 
emy of Medicine by A. B. Lyons, is quoted to the effect that benzal- 
dehyde (“ synthetic " oil of bitter almonds) is, of course, not medic- 
inally the equivalent of the volatile oil of bitter almonds, since the 
latter contains prussic ncid. — Bull. Pharm., Detroit, 1906, v. 20. p. 38. 
Schimmel & Co. assert that following the method for the determina- 
tion of benzaldehyde, as indicated by the U. S. P. VIII, they found 
it impossible to obtain even approximately satisfactory results, and 
therefore doubt the usefulness of the official method. They point 
out that benzaldelivde, described in commerce as “ free from chlo- 
rine,” does not alwa} r s deserve this designation, and recommend that 
purchasers pay special attention to this point, as the removal of the 
last traces of chlorine is not such a simple matter, but is necessary 
if the product is to be described as absolutely free from chlorine. — 
Semi- Ann. Rep., 1906, Apr .-May, pp. 70, 86, 
