ANALYSIS OF CINCHONA BARKS FROM INDIA. 
593 
*No. 3. C. succiruhra .—Original bark, unmossed. 
Crystallized sulphates.4-50 
Alkaloids soluble in ether.1-71 
Insol. in ether, cinchonine cryst.0'40 
Cinchonicine.0-34 
- 0-74 
6-95 
Memo .—The sulphates as under No. 2. 
No. 4. C. officinalis, var. jS. Condarninea '(Bonplandiana ?).—Second crop of bark, re¬ 
newed under moss. 
Crystallized sulphates. .6’52 
Alkaloids soluble in ether, quinine and cinchonidine . . . 1-35 
Insol. in ether, cinchonicine . .0'15 
8-02 
Memo .—The sulphate refines well, and stands the ether test. 
No. 5. C. officinalis, var. )8. Condarninea (^Bonplandiana ?).—Original bark, nine 
months under moss. 
Crystallized sulphates.6-66 
Alkaloids soluble in ether, quinine and cinchonidine .... O'SG 
Insol. in ether, cinchonicine.0*15 
7-37 
Memo .—As No.. 4. 
No. 6. C. officinalis, var. j8. Condarninea (Bonplandiana ?).—Original quill bark under 
moss. 
Crystallized sulphates.2-58 
Alkaloids soluble in ether, quinine and cinchonidine .... 2‘10 
Insol. in ether, cinchonicine.0-05 
4-73 
Memo .—As No. 5. 
No. 7. C. Pahudiana .—Original bark, nine months under moss. 
Crystallized sulphates.0-581 
Alkaloids soluble in ether, quinine chiefly.0 180 
Insol. in ether, cinchonicine, a trace.— 
0-761 
Memo .—The quinine, refined (with some loss) and separated from a very little cin¬ 
chonidine, (apparently) gave 0-580 per cent. 
No. 8. C. officinalis, var. cmpa.—Original bark, unmossed. 
Crystallized sulphates.0-259 
Alkaloids soluble in ether, chiefly quinine. 0 370 
Insol. in ether, cinchonicine, a trace.— 
0-629 
jifcmo .—The quinine refined as above, still retaining a characteristic tinge of green, 
gave 0-590 per cent. Two specimens of this fine Loja in 1851 and 1854 gave me,— 
1854. A particularly fine and unmixed parcel— 
* With reference to the above specimens marked Nos. 2 and 3, Dr. Pliickiger makes the 
following observations in a letter to Mr. Daniel Hanbury ;—“As to the mossed Cinchona Bai-k, 
I was astonished not to find any considerable difference in it to the natural bark, with the 
exception of a richer development of the corky laj'er, but not an increase at all of the liber 
fibres. This, I think is also in favour of Mr. Howard’s opinion that the parenchyma, rather 
than the liber fibres, is the very seat of alkaloids, and a corroboration of my statements in rn^- 
paper on the anatomy of Cinchona Barks.” 
OL. VIII. ^ 
