340 
Bark  of  Robinia  Pseudacacia. 
f  Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
|      August,  1913. 
derartigen  Versuchen  h'dtte  ich  jedoch  viel  grosser e  Mengen  von 
Material  gebraucht  als  sie  mir  zur  Verfugung  standen.  Ich  musste 
mich  daher  damit  begniigen  festgestellt  zu  haben  dass  es  sich  that- 
sdchlich  um  eine  giftige  Eiweisssubstanz  handelt."  In  another 
place,  with  the  incorrect  assumption  that  I  had  assigned  to  the 
Robinia  protein  a  name  (robinin)  which  might  cause  it  to  be  con- 
fused with  the  coloring  matter  of  Robinia  flowers,  Lau  remarked  : 
"  Man  wird  daraus  ersehen,  zvie  zeitgemdss  es  war,  wiser n  Gift- 
stoff  aus  der  Robinie  in  Robin  umzubenennen" 
It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  quotations  that  in  1901  the 
poisonous  action  of  the  Robinia  protein  was  recognized  by  Pro- 
fessor Kobert  and  his  pupil,  and  in  this  connection  it  seems  desir- 
able to  repeat  what  I  had  recorded  in  1901  {loc.  cit.,  p.  259)  that 
some  time  after  having  obtained  the  poisonous  protein  from  Robinia 
bark  I  sent  a  specimen  of  it  to  the  late  Professor  Fliickiger,  of 
Strassburg,  and  in  a  letter  from  him  under  the  date  of  February  4, 
1892,  which  is  still  in  my  possession,  he  wrote  as  follows:  "  I  have 
to  thank  you  for  the  poison  of  Robinia,  which  I  sent  finally  to 
Prof.  Kobert,  Dorpat  (Russia).  He  has  also  prepared  the  poison, 
and  states  now  that  it  nearly  agrees  with  your  preparation." 
In  view  of  all  the  well-known  facts,  which  have  been  so  com- 
pletely substantiated,  concerning  the  toxic  action  and  other  properties 
of  the  Robinia  protein,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Professor 
Kobert  could  now  have  been  led  to  make  such  obviously  incorrect 
and  misleading  statements  on  this  subject  as  are  contained  in  the 
recent,  above-mentioned  publication.  He  there  notes  (loc.  cit.,  p. 
82)  that  he  has  repeated  his  own  experiments,  and  must  withdraw 
the  statements  made  together  with  Lau  respecting  the  poisonous 
action  of  robin,  those  statements  being  now  regarded  by  him  as 
attributable  to  the  impurity,  imperfect  solubility,  or  the  immod- 
erately large  doses  of  the  preparation  used  at  that  time.  The 
preparation  more  recently  employed  by  him,  while  acting  ener- 
getically on  some  kinds  of  blood,  was  found  not  to  be  poisonous 
for  rabbits  when  injected  subcutaneously  in  amounts  of  1  to  10  c.c. 
of  a  0.4  per  cent,  solution.  He  therefore  concludes  that  the  symp- 
toms of  poisoning  produced  in  man  and  animals  by  Robinia  bark 
cannot  be  referred  to  robin,  but  presumes  that  the  poisonous  prin- 
ciple is  the  alkaloid  or  glucoside  of  the  bark.  Having  thus  inferred 
from  the  results  of  the  above  experiment  that  robin  cannot  be 
regarded  as  poisonous  in  small  doses,  he  concludes  that  he  must 
