562 
he gives, besides the ordinary word “ puissage,” the 
curious Anglo-French name of “ stickage.” His object 
is to compare the tendency to tackiness in the different 
kinds of rubber rather than to discuss the cause ot its 
occurrence, for which purpose he examined a large 
series of rubbers in the Musee d’Histoire Naturelle, the 
Ecole superieure de Pharmacie de Paris, and the Jardin 
Colonial de Nogent sur Marne. 
Hevea braziliensis, was not tacky, even specimens 
dating from 1867 were in good condition, and two speci- 
mens of H. guyanensis were also good. 
The rubber known as Sernamby, from Peru, and 
Guiyana, chiefly was all tacky, especially where it was m 
contact with the glass. These Sernambies are stated to 
be scraps and residues of Hevea but the writer suggests 
that they are of some other origin. Ceara rubber, out 
of 8 samples, 3 were not tacky, all the others more or 
less tacky or resinified. 
Euphorbia Intisy from Madagascar, two out of five 
were not tacky, the rest spoilt. All the Castilloa elastica 
was sticky or resinified. Of Ficus elastica ballslof scrap all 
were tacky. One sample out of five of Ficus prolixa o 
New Caledonia was not tacky as was a ball of scrap of 
Ficus albinervis from Reunion. 
Cryptostegia Madagascariensis was all good, *of 
verrucosa and Hancornia speciosa were both tacky. Of 
the Landolphias no less than fourteen species were exa- 
mined, all of which there were a number of specimens 
appeared to have a tendency to tackiness but the speci- 
mens of L. Heudelotu seemed the best. Four species of 
Mascarenasia were examined and two hstanth, flora 
and longifoUa were neither sticky nor resinous. Fun- 
tumia elastica , Willughbeia firma, TO 
Micrechites Napoeensis , Xylinbana " 
tacky, as were Guayule, Lobelia elastica and Vahea sene 
galensis. 
In fact the only rubbers which really seemed proof 
against tackiness wer eHevea braziliensis and H. Guyanensis. 
