Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  \ 
January,  1902.  J 
Cinchona  Bark. 
31 
ing,  whereby  fine  dust  is  lost,  will  yield  higher  results  than  the  con- 
ditions actually  are.  Since  this  is  exemplified  by  an  article  with 
which  the  average  American  pharmaceutical  chemist  comes  very 
seldom,  if  ever,  in  contact,  namely,  Ledgeriana  root  bark,  Van 
Ketel's  figures  might  follow  (De  Vrij  proved  years  ago  that  some 
root  bark  is  even  richer  in  alkaloid  than  stem  bark).  I  have  before 
me  a  root  bark  containing  10  (ten)  per  cent,  total  alkaloids. 
Gort.  cinchona  succ.  ledgeriana  root  bark,  containing  7-67  per 
cent,  total  alkaloid,  yielded  from 
Per  Cent. 
First  sifting   5*66 
Second  "   6*94 
Third  "     7-43 
Fourth  "   7-9 
Fifth  *  .  ...  ........  ...  ............  8-53 
Sixth  "    8-8 
Seventh  "      8*9 
Referent  had  a  few  good  opportunities  to  test  it  if  the  new 
method  would  obliviate  the  tried  older  ones. 
A  cinchona  bark  was  offered  for  sale  warranted  to  contain  11 
(eleven)  per  cent,  total  alkaloid. 
Repeated  assays  yielded  only  a  little  over  6  (six)  per  cent.,  by 
shaking  out,  as  well  as  by  maceration  with  "  Prollius."  Boiling 
with  ether,  according  to  Van  Ketel,  continually  chequing  throughout 
the  whole  process,  yielded  4  (four)  per  cent.  Duplicate  analysis  of 
another  to  No.  60  powder  reduced  bark,  said  bark  offered  for  sale 
as  containing  8  (eight)  per  cent,  total  alkaloids,  had  given  me,  by 
the  shaking  method  in  the  cold,  with  "  Prollius  "  respectfully,  5  6 
and  5  7  per  cent.  According  to  Van  Ketel's  method — -rotating  the 
flask  containing  the  boiling  mixture  every  five  minutes;  proving 
the  exhaustion  of  the  dregs  from  adhering  alkaloid ;  washing  the 
alkaline  fluid  (6)  twice  with  aether,  I  obtained  4-35  per  cent. 
This  is  of  course  a  very  limited  experience,  but  not  an  encourag- 
ing one,  after  all  the  labor  and  the  care.  I  hope  sincerely  that 
some  one  may  fare  better  than  I.  The  author  will  certainly  allow 
me  to  emphasize  that  his  process  has  to  go  on  without  being 
interrupted,  or  there  will  be  danger  that  cinchonine  crystallizes  cut 
in  the  separator,  which  would,  of  course,  give  unreliable  results. 
New  Orleans,  La.,  Oct.,  1901. 
