ON SOME OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE BRITISH PHARMA¬ 
COPOEIA PREPARED FROM THE DRY MATERIAL. 
(Continued from page 309.) 
BY A. F. HASELDEN. 
III.— Extractum Kramerise. 
In pursuing ray remarks upon some of the Pharmacopoeia extracts prepared 
from the dry material, I have selected that of Rhatany as the first for considera¬ 
tion this evening, under the impression that there are some observations in con¬ 
nection with it which may prove a source of interest. To the followers of the 
London and Dublin Pharmacopoeias the extract of rhatany is a new prepara¬ 
tion, this is one feature which makes it worthy of notice ; and there is another 
which is especially interesting,—I allude to the scarcity for some time past of the 
Peruvian, or Payta rhatany in the London market; indeed, about a year or 
more ago it was scarcely to be obtained, and yet, with three preparations in the 
Pharmacopoeia—namely, the infusion of London, the extract of Edinburgh, 
and the tincture of Dublin—the Krameria triandra , or Peruvian rhatany, is 
the only species recognised in the British Pharmacopoeia. Now there is, and 
has been for some seven or eight years past, another kind of rhatany in the 
market, known as Savanilla rhatany; and with the probability or possibility of 
a scarcity of Peruvian, it may be worth while to compare the preparations of 
the two varieties. But before proceeding to that part of the subject, I should 
like to say a word upon the sources of the two roots. The Peruvian, or old 
kind, is found in Peru and Bolivia, and exported from Lima to the European 
ports. The Savanilla is found in New Granada, and exported from the port of 
Savanilla, and probably takes its name from that circumstance. Savanilla, as 
may be seen upon the map, is situated in the north of New Granada, at the 
mouth of one of the branches of the river Magdalena, which flows into the 
Caribbean Sea. The two roots are from different species ; the second, not being 
produced by the action of climate and soil upon the original kind. Upon care¬ 
ful examination they can be readily distinguished ; externally, the stems of the 
Savanilla are smoother and not so knotty as the Peruvian, the adhesion of the 
bark to the wood is stronger in the Savanilla than in the Peruvian, and it can 
be broken without disturbing the bark so much ; the colour is also different. 
For a more detailed account I must refer you to an article in the Pharmaceutical 
Journal, by Dr. Schucharclt, vol. xvi. pp. 29, 132. The short specimens are 
such as are commonly found of the Peruvian and Savanilla; the long one, 
measuring twenty-two inches, is also the Peruvian kind, and such as I should 
always like to have. From the length and undisturbed state of the bark it is 
evident that it has been taken up and packed with great care; it is a sample of 
some recently imported and presented to me by Messrs. Horner. But to turn 
to the points more especially belonging to my subject. Is the Pharmacopoeia 
process for obtaining the extract an efficient one ? and is Savanilla equal to Peru¬ 
vian rhatany ? and would it fill its place in case of a deficient supply ? 
I believe that I shall be able to establish the facts that the Pharmacopoeia 
process is a satisfactory one, and that there is little or no difference in the value 
of the two roots. I have here an extract of each kind, prepared according to 
the Pharmacopoeia directions, viz. percolation with cold water and subsequent 
evaporation by a water-bath heat. From two pounds of coarsely-ground Peru¬ 
vian rhatany, using four gallons and a half of distilled water, I obtained three 
ounces and a half of dry extract possessing considerable astringency, and from 
the marc afterwards digested with boiling distilled water 180 grains of an al¬ 
most tasteless extract; from two pounds of Savanilla under the same conditions, 
