21 
of a known amount of poisonous ingredient, but is rather that 
of a substance that becomes increasingly virulent after it has 
been eaten. It seems to me that the chemical assay of the 
plant, as far as I have determined, does not at present ac¬ 
count for the physiological action of the drug, and I will say 
that I would not be at all surprised if it would be shown that 
the plant does not contain a fixed constituent that will produce 
the craziness that follows after its use as a food. I am rather 
of the opinion, therefore, that we will have to look for a fer¬ 
mentative poison that results after the plant is eaten, rather 
than a poison contained in the plant. I would not be at all 
surprised if, in the study of this plant, it will be shown that 
under the influence of the digestive agents, a substance is pro¬ 
duced which accounts for the subsequent action of the plant. 
In other words, it is my surmise that the poisonous action of 
the loco weed is due, perhaps, to ^p 7 'oduct instead of 2Medtict. 
It remains to be seen whether this product is of a mature of 
the microbe or of the ptomaine, whether it is an alkaloid or an 
organism. I will add that in this surmise I am not carrying 
myself beyond what has been demonstrated to be true of 
other substances outside of foods, and will call your attention 
that in modern medicine we now use a preparation of 
jequirity, which depends altogether on its action from the 
swarms of microbes that form in the infusion of the beans, 
and I will add that it is then a violent poison, while the bean 
itself does not contain a constituent of that nature. It may 
be that I am off in my surmise, but at least I think that loco 
will bear investigation in this direction, and I would suggest 
that a careful examination be made microscopically, locally, of 
the parts of the animal affected after the plant has been 
eaten. You will perceive from the foregoing that while the 
plant undoubtedly contains an alkaloid, or alkaloids, I do not 
believe this alkaloid is of the importance some think it will 
prove to be.” 
The statement of Prof. Lloyd is worthy of very careful 
consideration. I have been long persuaded that the best way 
to study the loco question is to spend the summer where the 
animals are said to be locoed, to see what the animals eat, 
how they act, what they drink, and to carefully observe their 
symptoms and post mortem appearances. The reason why I 
make these comments is that there are so many contradictory 
statements made to one, that you can believe but little of 
what you hear about locoed animals. Many of the ranchmen 
call the larkspur, or poison weed, the loco. A chemical anal¬ 
ysis was also made of the larkspur. It was treated the same 
as the loco weed by the Dragendorff method. The solution 
