New York AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 201 
Reinitzer (1897) likewise refused to admit that the cytolytic 
action in barley is due to another ensym that diastase 
although he considers that an enzym, cytase, differing from 
. the barley enzym may occur in seeds having the walls thick- 
ened with hemicellulose as a reserve material. 
Bourquelot and Herissey- (1898) made trial of the enzymic 
action of a barley malt extract, secured by the method of alco- 
holic precipitation, upon a solution of pectine from gentian. 
They found evidence of the presence of an enzym, destroyed 
by heating to the boiling point, which was capable of so chang- 
ing pectine that it cannot thereafter be gelatinized by the 
action of the clotting enzym, pectase. This is, they believe, 
due to the conversion of the pectine into reducing sugars. 
For this enzym they propose the name pectinase. 
Green (1901 :104) considers that they did not prove this 
“ pectinase ” to be different from the cytolytic enzym of Brown 
and Morris, since the French observers did not determine what 
constituent of the wall is affected by it. Green appears, how- 
ever, to have overlooked a later publication by Bourquelot 
(1899: 567) in which he states that when the solution of pec- 
tine was coagulated by pectase and this coagulum treated with 
the mait enzym solution it gradually disappeared and coinci- 
dently reducing sugar was found, showing that it was a pro- 
cess of hydrolysis. He considers the action of these two 
enzyms, pectase and pectinase, on the compounds of the pectic 
series ‘analogous to that of rennet and trypsin, respectively, on 
casein, in that one causes coagulation of the soluble forms 
while the other liquefies the coagulum through hydrolysis. As 
confirmatory of his conclusions he cites experiments wherein 
he added the two enzyms simultaneously to the pectine solu- 
tion. When the proportion of the pectase was larger as com- 
pared with the amount of pectinase there resulted first coagu- 
lation and then the gradual liquefaction of the coagulum. 
When the proportions were reversed no coagulation took place. 
These latter experiments would seem to disarm any suspicion 
that the solution of the clot as reported in the first experiment 
was due to bacterial development. It is, however, a matter of 
