KAMALA. 
311 
therefore written to Professor Anderson, of Glasgow, who, it would be remem¬ 
bered, was the discoverer of rottlerine ,—the crystalline principle of kamala,—to 
inquire how he accounted for its not being also found by Leube, whose paper on 
the subject appeared in the ‘ Pharmaceutical Journal 1 about six years ago,*' and 
who appeared to throw some doubts on its existence. Professor Anderson had 
sent him a letter, in which he suggested that Leube had worked on a very im¬ 
pure specimen. The letter ran as follows :— 
“ University of Glasgow , 3rd December , 1867. 
“ Dear Professor Attfield,—The specimen of kamala from which I obtained 
rottlerine was collected for me by Dr. Cleghorn, Inspector of Forests in Southern 
India, and was of remarkable purity. It contained but a small quantity of 
ash, and was obviously very free from foreign matter. That used by Leube, 
which appears to have been the ordinary commercial article, was just as ob¬ 
viously impure. He considers the 28 per cent, cf ash he found in it to be its 
only impurity, and to be dust dependent on the fruit; but I am inclined to 
think that his specimen must have contained some vegetable impurities as 
w T ell. I can quite understand how the presence of impurities may prevent the 
crystallization of rottlerine, for it is exactly the kind of substance likely to be 
affected by them. Its characters resemble, in some respects, those of a resin, 
and it forms a silky powder, which the microscope shows to be crystalline and 
not distinct crystals, as Leube seems to have supposed. I obtained but a small 
quantity of it, and I now suspect that a portion was retained by the resin, and 
did not crystallize. In some operations more was obtained than in others, much 
depending ou the concentration of the solution ; and where the whole extract 
of the kamala was at once evaporated to dryness, I failed afterwards to ob¬ 
tain any crystals of rottlerine. It seems to me reasonable to suppose that the 
impurities were the cause of Leube’s failure to extract a substance which is not 
highly crystalline, and partakes of the characters of a resin. I have been often 
struck with the ease with which resinous substances lose their crystalline ap¬ 
pearance and become amorphous, exposure to a temperature of 219° being often 
sufficient to produce the change, especially when they are impure, and I am 
strongly inclined to the opinion that some of the substances contained in 
Leube’s specimens must either have prevented the separation of rottlerine or 
rendered it amorphous. 
“I am, dear Sir, yours truly, 
“ Thomas Anderson. 
11 Professor Attfield .” 
It thus appeared that Professor Anderson had experimented with a very pure 
specimen of kamala, which contained only 3-84 per cent, of ash, whilst Leube 
worked on the commercial article, which was always impure, being often picked 
up from the ground, and generally contained 28 or 29 per cent, of inorganic 
matter. Mr. Hanbury, who had translated Leube’s paper for the Journal, 
made some experiments with reference to the amount of ash, and he, in common 
with Leube, found about 28 per cent. 
Mr. Hanbury thought Professor Anderson’s explanation was hardly satis¬ 
factory, for lie could not understand how the presence of earthy impurities in 
commercial kamala could prevent the elimination of a crystalline principle 
which was said to exist in it. It was some years since he had referred to Pro¬ 
fessor Anderson’s paper; but, according to his recollection, he stated that, on 
allowing an ethereal solution to evaporate, a mass of crystals were formed in it, 
whiclr he spoke of as satiny plates, and implied that they were formed in con¬ 
siderable abundance. On the other hand, Leube, who appeared to have 
* See Pliarm. Journ. vol. ii., N. s., p- 166. 
