519 
Rusby, H. H., found a sample of exhausted, dried, and powdered 
ginger which was being offered as ginger. — Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 
1906, v. 54, p. 337. 
Eyans, John, comments on the use of the microscope in the detection 
of adulteration. One of the most frequent adulterants is exhausted 
ginger, which must be detected by proximate analysis. — Apothecary, 
Boston, 1906, y. 18, p. 906. 
Philipp Roder, Wien, reports examining a sample of ginger which 
contained 4.61 per cent of ash and yielded 3.62 per cent of extract to 
70 per cent alcohol and 3.62 per cent of extract to 90 per cent alcohol. 
The Ph. Austr. VIII prescribes a limit of 5 per cent of ash, which 
Philipp Roder belieyes to be too low and quotes Hauke, who suggests 
8 per cent as a fair limitation. — Pharm. Post, Wien, 1906, v. 39. p. 296. 
The Ph. Brit. Committee of Reference in Pharmacy report on 
zingiber says the powder should not yield more than 5 per cent of 
ash and not less than 1.5 per cent of soluble ash or 5 per cent of 
alcoholic extract. — Chem. & Drug., Bond., 1906. y. 69. p. 865. 
Vanderkleed, Clias. E., found African ginger substituted for 
Jamaica ginger. — Proc. Pennsylvania Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 123. 
Smith, Kline & French Co. report the following data from their 
examination of ground African ginger: Ash, 5.11 per cent; ash 
insoluble in hydrochloric acid, 2.1 per cent; ether extractive (non- 
volatile), 5.6 per cent; alcohol extractive, 7.8 per cent; lime (CaO), 
0.6 per cent. — Lab. Rep., S., K. & F., 1906, p. 35. 
The Helfenberger Annalen (for 1905, p. 131) records the amount 
of extract yielded by a sample of ginger to varying menstrua. — 
Pharm. Zentralh., 1906, v. 47, p. 875. 
Beysen. Kurt, suggests that the Ph. Germ, directions for making 
tincture of ginger be made to require the preliminary treatment of 
20 parts of the powdered ginger with 30 parts of boiling water, and 
when cool adding 70 parts of alcohol. A tincture made in this way, 
he asserts, will be brilliant and clear, despite the low alcohol con- 
tent.— Ber. d. pharm. Gesellsch., Berl., 1906, v. 16, p. 332. 
