290 
Tincture  of  Hyosci/amus. 
(Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
\       May,  1884. 
compared  with  the  stronger  spirit  tinctures  prepared  from  the  same 
samples.    The  table  underneath  sufficiently  explains  itself. 
Xo.  1.  German  annual,  proof  spt.  —  1*05  per  cent,  extractive. 
No.  2.  German  annual,  rect.tspt.  =  *20  per  cent,  extractive. 
No.  3.  Large  leaf  biennial  ver.,  proof  spt.  =  1*40  per  cent,  extractive. 
No.  4.  Large  leaf  biennial  ver.,  rect.  spt.  *20  per  cent,  extractive. 
Xo.  5.  Biennial  tops  ver.,  proof  spt.  =  140  per  cent,  extractive. 
Xo.  6.  Biennial  tops  ver.,  rect.  spt.  =  -20  per  cent,  extractive. 
No.  7.  Biennial  commercial  (1),  proof  spt.  =  T20  per  cent,  extractive. 
No.  8.  Biennial  commercial,  rect.  spt.  =  -21  per  cent,  extractive. 
No.  9.  Biennial  commercial  (2),  proof  spt.  =  1-20  per  cent,  extractive. 
Xo.  10.  Biennial  commercial,  rect.  spt.  =  -.5  per  cent,  extractive. 
Of  course  extractive  matter  is  not  active  principle,  and  the  correct 
plan  to  determine  the  relative  value  of  the  two  tinctures  would  be  to 
estimate  the  amount  of  hyoseyamine  present  in  them.  I  have  been 
experimenting  on  quantities  much  too  small  to  permit  of  this,  andr 
moreover,  it  was  not  my  intention,  as  I  have  already  explained,  to 
enter  into  the  question  of  a  stronger  or  a  weaker  tincture,  so  that  I 
have  not  had  time  to  do  so,  even  although  I  had  so  desired. 
To  sum  up  my  observations,  we  have : 
First.  The  fact  that  the  spectroscope  does  not  distinguish  between 
a  tincture  made  from  an  annual  or  a  biennial  plant. 
Second.  That  the  milky  turbidity  on  the  addition  of  water  is  not  a 
test  to  distinguish  the  one  from  the  other;  but  it  is  a  fairly  good  test 
as  to  the  quality,  as  far  as  age,  exposure,  etc.,  of  the  biennial  plant  is 
concerned . 
Third.  That  a  proof  spirit  tincture,  although  quickly  changing  so 
far  as  the  chlorophyll  matter  is  concerned,  does  not  show  this  change 
to  any  extent  to  the  naked  eye,  while  the  more  important  chemical 
changes  which  ultimately  affect  the  quality  of  the  tincture  therapeuti- 
cally are  comparatively  slow. 
Fourth.  That  a  rectified  spirit  tincture  undergoes  very  rapid  changes, 
which  are  very  conspicuous  to  the  naked  eye,  and  which  are  almost 
certain  to  end  in  rapid  chemical  changes  affecting  the  therapeutic  value 
(if  it  possesses  any)  of  the  tincture. 
Fifth.  That  rectified  spirit  does  not  possess  the  same  power  of  ex- 
hausting the  henbane  of  its  extractive  matter  as  proof  spirit. 
Sixth.  That  a  rectified  spirit  tincture  and  a  proof  spirit  tincture  are 
quite  unlike  in  their  appearance,  so  much  so  as  practically  to  make 
them  unrecognizable. — Phar.  Jour.  Trans.,  March  March,  29,  1884, 
p.  781. 
