446 BULLETIN OF THE BUSSEY INSTITUTION. 
action of the 3% hydrochloric acid on the wood’ that had been 
leached with ammonia the tests indicated 23.04% of sugar; after 
the second action (8% HCl, after soaking in strong, cold HCl) 
the tests showed 5.64%, and after the treatment with strong 
sulphuric acid they showed 23%. That is to say, the indications 
were that nearly 52% of sugar, all told, had been got from the 
root wood which had been leached with ammonia and dried 
at 100°. 
In the case of the trunk wood the tests showed, respectively, 
16.21%, 3.17% and 27.04% of ‘* dextrose.” In all 46.42% of 
the dry wood. These figures (as indicated by Fehling’s liquor) 
depend of course solely on the presumption that the observed 
reductions were due to the presence of sugars properly so-called. 
As will be shown directly this presumption is not justifiable; but 
at this stage of the investigation it was regarded as a not wholly 
improbable hypothesis, and many efforts were made to isolate in 
visible, tangible form the substance whatever it might be that 
exhibited a higher rotatory power than dextrose. For example, 
rather more than 50 grm. of powdered maple root were boiled 
over a free flame in a flask with reflux condenser for three hours 
with 1000 c.c. of dilute sulphuric acid (of 3.5%) to remove 
starch and some of the xylan. The filtrate obtained in this way 
was neutralized with calcium carbonate, evaporated and examined. 
It showed quasi(a) D = 47°.87 and ‘* dextrose” (in some part 
xylose) enough to amount to 14.35% of the dry wood. 
The undissolved residue from this first treatment was left over 
night to dry out somewhat in the air and 30 c.c. of strong sul- 
phuric acid, of 90% H,SO,, were added to it. The mixture was 
left to itself during 24 hours, and was then poured into enough 
boiling water to reduce the acid to the strength of 3.5%. After 
this dilution the mixture was boiled over a free flame for 3 hours, 
and the filtrate was set aside to be added to the product of the 
next hydrolysis. 
In this particular instance the treatment with strong sulphuric 
acid was not wholly satisfactory, because in the course of it evi- 
dence presented itself that the residue from the treatment with 
3.5% acid had not been adequately dried. It had, in fact, 
retained so much moisture that the strong acid added to it was at 
once diluted to such an extent that it had no proper opportunity 
