For comparison, the percentages 
been calculated for the dry material 
of Liutta, resin and dirt have 
D 
as follows - 
No. 1.. 
No. 2. 
No. 3. 
Gutta 
No. 4. 
No. 5. 
No. 6. 
Gutta 
Gutta Taban 
Gutta 
Taban j 
Gutta 
Gutta 
Taban 
Putih. 
Simpor. 
Cliaia. j 
Minjato. 
1 
Susu. 
Me rah. 
Gutta 38-5. 
45*5 1 
52*6 
23*0 
2*4 
76*0 
Resin 53*5. 
-l6o 
440 
7 2 ‘° 
867 
l 5 “° 
1 
Dirt and In- 1 
soluble mat- 
ter 8'o. 
1 
8*5 
3*4 
i 5 ‘° 
io*g 
9*o 
Ash (included 
in clirt) 0*77 
.2* l6 
; 1*^4 
, 
I t 
°*7 
! o- 9 
1 *0 
These results show that the sample of Gutta Taban Merab, 
No. 6, which represents the highest class of gutta-percha, is of 
excellent quality, and far superior to any of the other specimens. 
The Gutta Taban Putih, No f, contains a much higher percentage 
of resin and is therefore much inferior in quality to the preceding; 
the gutta which it contains is strong aud of good quality however. 
Gutta Simpor, No. 2, is also an inferior grade of gutta-percha, 
owing to tile presence of much resin, hut here again the actual 
gutta is ol good quality, J he Gutta laban Cliaia, No. 3* m very 
similar material to Nos. f and 2, but contains a little less resin and 
its gutta is of rather better quality. The Gutta Minjato, No. 4, 
and Gutta Susu, No. 5, are not true gutta-perchas, since they con- 
tain no proper gutta. The “gutta ' obtained from No. 4 was a 
friable and somewhat waxy substance, possessing little or no 
strength whilst No. 5 which' resembles Pontianac, contained no 
gutta, but a quantity o! rubber-like material, which was completely 
dissolved with the resin on treatment with ether. Neither ol these 
samples could be utilised for insulating purposes. 
For comparison with the foregoing results, some analyses by 
Dr. OBACH of similar samples of gutta-perchas of known botanical 
origin may be quoted. 
