July 30, 1870.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
85 
made up of eight or ten rows of cells, while in the 
SavaniUa kind there are only half as many. Other 
differences do not appear to he general, when the 
comparative examination is extended to a large 
number of sections from roots of various thicknesses. 
Thus, for instance, hi thin pieces only a few cells of 
the parenchyma are filled until oxalate of lime, while 
in thicker pieces this is frequently the case, as 
hi the SavaniUa roots. Even in regard to the thick¬ 
ness of the bark, the difference is often only one of 
degree. Moreover, since the parenchyma fibres in 
the Para variety present a very scattered appearance 
at the outer circumference of the sections, it is not 
easy to distinguish precisely between the middle bark 
and the interior bark. 
The identification of Para rhatany is sufficiently 
ensured by means of the external characteristics 
above mentioned, except in the case of some few 
pieces. 
After having thus assured myself as to the identity 
of Berg’s Brazilian rhatany with that obtained from 
Para through the French house, I received a memoir 
read before the Paris School of Pharmacy by Cotton 
in 1868. This laborious paper, entitled ‘ Etude Com- 
paree sur le Genre Krameria et les Racines qu’U 
fournit a la Medecine,’ first specifies the 21 different 
varieties of Krameria that are known, and then 
treats of the roots belonging to each. After the 
Payta root, which is the only officinal kind in France, 
Cotton describes the SavaniUa kind, and explains 
that there are two very different types of it, viz. the 
New Granada, or true SavaniUa, and that from the 
Antilles. In reference to the first named type, Cotton 
gives no information that is new to me, and it cor¬ 
responds with the SavaniUa rhatany described in 
German works. He states that the roots from the 
AntiUes are now commencing to displace those from 
New Granada and Peru. 
Cotton distinguishes two forms of rhatany from the 
AntUles, viz. a black kind ( Ratanhia des AntiUes a 
■surface noire) and a brown land (R. d. A. a surface 
■hrune). The former is characterized by numerous 
transverse fissures; the latter is destitute of them, 
but has longitudinal fissures. Although he is dis¬ 
posed to regard these two forms as being derived from 
■different varieties of Krameria, he, nevertheless, finds 
aU kinds of intermediate specimens. From the de¬ 
scription and drawings of the anatomical structure 
given by Cotton, nothing definite can be inferred. 
He states, further, that the AntiUes land (probably 
both the black and the brown) comes from several 
places on the coast of South America, near Cumanas, 
and “ as far as Guadeloupe.” It appears to me, 
therefore, that it is not especiaUy entitled to the de¬ 
signation of AntiUes rhatany.- Cotton adds, that it 
* Originally tliis was ascribed to K. Ixina in the French 
Codex, also by Mettenheimer in 1852, by Schuchardt in 
1855, and by Berg in 1866. Here the confusion began, inas¬ 
much as Berg (Jahresb. 1856) characterized Savanilla rhatany 
-correctly, but did not refer it to TC. Ixina; while he de¬ 
clared Schuchardt’s Ratanhia antillica to be identical with 
it. Wiggers (1856) likewise regarded it as a peculiar kind; 
Mettenheimer (Jahresb. 1857) identified the root mentioned 
by him with Berg’s (Savanilla or) Granada rhatany, and dis¬ 
puted their identity with the Antilles root from K. Ixina. 
Perhaps Mettenheimer’s description may, nevertheless, as 
already suggested, be referred to Para rhatany, although it is 
not ^sufficiently definite. After Hanbury (Pharm. Journ. 
1865, Vol. VI. p. 461) referred Savanilla rhatany to K. Ixina, 
at was again classed with the original Antilles kind. In re¬ 
porting on Hanbury’s memoir, Wiggers (1865) was correctly 
is generally, and perhaps witli reason, ascribed to 
Krameria Ixina, and lie beUeves lie lias proved this 
opinion to be correct by his comparison of specimens 
in the Paris herbarium with those of commerce. But, 
as wiUbe evident, this apphes only to a few fragments 
of the stem or branches, and not to the roots them¬ 
selves, so that Cotton’s assumption requires further 
demonstration, as he points out himself, since in re¬ 
gard to the brown kind or variety of AntiUes rha¬ 
tany, he is disposed to regard Krameria spartioides 
(Klotzsch) as the plant it is derived from, and, up to 
the present time, this is certainly known only in the 
northern and north-eastern parts of South America. 
The question now arises, whether this so-called 
AntiUes rhatany is a new kind, or whether the black 
form is “ identical with that described by Schuchardt* * 
in 1855, under the name SavanUla, wlfile the brown 
root corresponds to a “false” rhatany, mentioned by 
Martigny,f as Cotton suspects. I think it very neces¬ 
sary to inquire further into these questions; but, at 
present, it is my object to clear up the relation be¬ 
tween Cotton’s rhatany, of the AntiUes, and that from 
Para. Through the kindness of my colleague, Pro¬ 
fessor Planchon, of the Paris School of Pharmacy, I 
was enabled to examine the specimens described by 
Cotton, and to select typical examples of the brown 
and black kinds of his AntiUes rhatany. By com¬ 
paring these with Para rhatany, I have come to the 
conclusion that both these forms are identical with 
it. I may remark also, that this conclusion is based 
on the examination of twelve pounds of Para rhattany. 
The author sums up his remarks as follows ;— 
1. There are, at present, in commerce, three dif¬ 
ferent kinds of rhatany, which are best named after 
their principal ports of exportation,—Payta, Sava¬ 
niUa, and Para. 
2. The first two kinds are described according to 
origin and characters in every modern work on phar¬ 
macognosy. 
3. The Para root was first described by Berg, as 
“ radix ratanhise brasihensis by Cotton as rhatany 
of the AntiUes.| 
4. Its colour varies between dark grey and brown; 
the extremes of this colour were regarded by Cotton 
as black and brown varieties. 
5. Tins colour is very distinct from that of Payta 
and Savanilla rhatany. 
6. The origin of Para rhatany is unknown. 
7. The substitution, in medicine, of Payta rha¬ 
tany by another is inadmissible. There exist hi re¬ 
gard to the tannin, chemical differences which de¬ 
serve to be investigated. The tannins predominat¬ 
ing, or exclusively present perhaps in SavaniUa and 
Para rhatany, produce bluish-black precipitates with 
iron salts. 
under tlie impression that the Antilles kind was peculiar, and 
hence he assumed that, in the Antilles and in Venezuela, 
K. Ixina yielded this particular kind, as the true Antilles 
root, while the variety granatensis was obtained from the 
same plant in New Granada, as the Savanilla root. Whoever 
traces these modifications in the idea of Antilles rhatany, will 
share with me the wish to follow them out completely. After 
all, it seems to me very questionable whether the former 
French Codex was right in referring its Antilles rhatany to 
K. Ixina. 
* Botanische Zeitung, vol. xiii. p. 536, and Wiggers, 
Jahresb. 1855, p. 48. 
f Encyclop. der med. pharm. Naturalien-und Rohwaaren- 
kunde, 1834, p. 562. 
X Cotton was not acquainted with Berg’s work. 
