548 
Reviews. 
(  Am .  Jour.  Pbarm. 
I      October,  1S97. 
authors  of  writing  their  papers  on  the  waj^  to  the  meeting.  It  is  safe  to  say 
that  the  author  who  is  so  terribly  pushed  for  time  as  to  be  compelled  to  call  in 
the  services  of  a  stenographer  and  typewriter  after  he  reaches  the  place  of 
meeting,  is  not  going  to  produce  anything  that  will  prevent  the  section  from 
disintegrating  into  a  trolley  party,  if  such  an  opportunity  occurs. 
A  COMPARISON. 
The  editor  of  the  Pharmaceutical  Jour?ial  has  expressed  a  fear  that  our 
remarks  in  the  August  number  on  the  ability  of  the  British  Pharmaceutical 
Conference  to  transact  a  large  amount  of  scientific  work  in  a  short  time  were 
sarcastic  rather  than  complimentary,  and  we  are  desirous  of  assuring  him  that 
he  ma}-  interpret  in  favor  of  the  Conference.  The  assertion  was  made  with  a 
comparison  in  mind,  which  has  been  made  during  the  past  several  years,  while 
the  two  great  English-speaking  pharmaceutical  bodies  have  been  holding  their 
annual  meetings.  The  developments  this  year  at  Minnetonka  still  more  empha- 
sized the  difference  in  the  manner  of  conducting  the  two  associations.  At  Glas- 
gow the  Conference  lasted  three  days,  the  last  of  which  was  devoted  to  pleasure- 
seeking,  and  seventeen  papers  were  read  and  discussed.  The  report  in  the 
Pharmaceutical  Journal  does  not  record  that  any  were  read  by  title ;  one, 
making  eighteen  in  all,  arrived  from  Australia  too  late  for  the  meeting,  but  was 
accepted  by  the  Publication  Committee.  At  Minnetonka  five  days  were  set 
down  for  business,  and  two  more,  with  Sunday,  for  pleasure ;  about  thirty 
papers  were  disposed  of,  many  of  them  being  merely  read  by  title,  and  dis- 
cussion wras  much  curtailed  on  the  others.  Certainly  no  sarcasm  can  be  found 
in  our  remarks  after  making  this  comparison. 
REVIEWS  AND  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICES. 
Sur  un  Strophanthus  do  Congo  Francaise. — Par  MM.  les  professeurs 
Schlagdenhauffen  et  Louis  Planchon.  Reprint  from  Annates  de  V Institute 
Colonial,  Marseilles.  1897. 
The  authors  studied  this  new  species  because  they  believe  that  strophanthus 
will  be  an  important  medicine  of  the  future,  and  because  every  new  variety 
of  such  a  valuable  remedy,  which  appears  in  commerce,  should  have  its  fit- 
ness for  medicinal  use  established.  From  the  several  botanical  characters 
clearly  shown  in  the  beautiful  illustration  which  accompanies  the  contribution, 
the  authors  feel  justified  in  declaring  this  to  be  a  new  species,  which  they  have 
designated  Strophanthus  d' Autran,  after  the  botanist  who  collected  it. 
In  Chapter  I  the  fruit  and  seed  are  described,  and  the  anatomic  differences 
between  this  and  other  species  illustrated.  Chapter  II  is  devoted  to  the  chemical 
analysis  of  the  f.-uit  and  seed  ;  and  Chapter  III  describes  the  physiological 
action  of  the  several  commercial  species  compared  with  the  new  species,  and 
their  influence  on  the  heart  action  of  a  frog  is  illustrated. 
The  conclusions  reached  are  that  there  is  a  close  resemblance,  chemically, 
between  the  new  species  and  the  Strophanthus  hispidus,  analyzed  by  Fraser, 
and  that  the  physiological  actions  of  S.  Kombe,  hispidus,  glabre,  Zambese  and 
d' Autran  are  identical. 
