5JO  Botanical  Characters  of  Officinal  Plants.  {hM^g^sJSHT' 
ficial  in  the  class  of  cases  for  which  balsam  of  copaiba  is  usually  ad- 
ministered. I  have  filled  a  few  capsules  of  gelatin  in  order  to  see 
whether  that  material  would  be  acted  on  injuriously  by  the  saponified 
balsam.  I  will  only  add  (miseris  succurrere  disco)  that  they  are  at  the 
disposal  of  the  members  of  the  Conference,  and  that  any  report  on 
their  action  that  I  may  be  favored  with  shall  be  treated  confidentially. — 
Pbar.  Jour,  and  Trans.,  [London]  Sept.  7, 
On  the  RELATIONS  between  the  ACTIVE  PRINCIPLES  and 
the  BOTANICAL  CHARACTERS  of  OFFICINAL  PLANTS. 
By  Professor  A.  Herlandt,  Bruxelles. 
Translated  from  -'Archiv  d.  Pharmacie,"  July  ("Jour,  de  Med.  de  Bruxelles,"  1878,  March),  by 
P.  H.  Dilg,  Ph.G. 
Are  the  relations  existing  between  the  properties  and  the  physical 
characters  of  plants,  as  observed  since  the  earliest  botanical  studies, 
merely  coincidental,  or  are  they  governed  by  the  laws  of  natural  affinity, 
which  endeavors  to  systematically  associate  all  living  beings  ? 
The  only  important  work  on  this  subject  is  A.  P.  DeCandolle's, 
"  On  the  Medicinal  Properties  of  Plants  Compared  with  their  Exter- 
nal Characters  and  their  Natural  Classification."  This,  like  all  his 
productions,  is  a  masterpiece,  which  would  obviate  the  necessity  of 
again  studying  the  question,  if  several  circumstances  did  not  compel  it. 
In  the  first  place,  his  work  dates  from  a  time  (1816)  when  chemistry 
had  not  isolated  with  certainty  a  single  active  principle.  Very  little 
was  known  of  the  analogy  existing  between  families,  and  the  latter 
themselves,  being  very  deficiently  limited,  embraced  many  foreign 
elements.  Notwithstanding  that  the  majority  of  scientific  men 
accepted  the  law  suggested  by  Linnaeus  and  extended  by  DeCandolle, 
there  were  some  who  would  either  not  recognize  it  at  all  or  admit  it 
very  reluctantly.  Chief  among  them  I  mention  J.  Chatin,  he  contra- 
dicting the  theories  of  DeCandolle  most  openly.  In  his  work  "  On 
the  Seat  of  Active  Principles  in  Plants,"  he  says:  "Apocynaceae. — 
Their  properties  differ  greatly  according  to  the  species,  consequently 
the  celebrated  theory  of  the  similarity  of  the  medicinal  and  botanical 
characters,  which  DeCandolle  so  emphatically  supports,  has  no  solid 
foundation."  1 
1  Chatin  makes  use  of  the  same  law  which  he  rejects,  for  in  the  same  work  he 
classes  the  plants  in  families,  and  then  states  their  medicinal  properties.    He  admits 
