THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACY
OCTOBER, 1905.
LONDON BOTANIC GARDENS.
By PIERRE ELIE PERREDES, B.Sc., F.L.S., Pharmaceutical Chemist.
A Contribution from the Wellcome Research Laboratories, London. I.
INTRODUCTORY.
The origin of our Botanic Gardens may be traced to the private gardens of the herbalists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Among these the garden of John Gerarde, in Holborn, which was situated within little more than a stone’s throw from the site upon which the Wellcome Chemical Research Laboratories now stand, may be cited as a noteworthy example. One of the main objects of these early cultivators was the determination of the characteristic features of plants used as remedial agents, and the framing of de. scriptions that would enable others to recognize such plants. It is not too much to say that many of their observations (¢. g. those of Parkinson) are remarkably shrewd and accurate.
The Chelsea Physic Garden, established by the Society of Apoth- ecaries of London, in 1673, was, to a great extent, based on the same plan as the gardens of these herbalists; but, unlike them, it was supported by a public body, so that it has survived to the present day. It was the first public institution of the kind in London, and it still remains as the oldest Botanic Garden in the metropolis,
Kew comes next in point of age, and its history as a scientific institution may be said to date from 1759, when William Aiton, a pupil of Philip Miller, of the Chelsea Garden, was appointed by the Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, Dowager Princess of Wales, for the purpose of establishing a physic garden in what had hitherto
(451)
7 | ‘ | | |
452 London Botanic Gardens. { Am. Jour. Pharm. been little more than the ornamental grounds of her residence. Kew is, therefore, in a measure, an offshoot of the Chelsea Physic Garden.
The last Botanic Gardens which remain to be considered in de- tail are those of the Royal Botanic Society, in Regent’s Park. These were begun in 1839 by that Society, with the ultimate object of forming “extensive botanical and ornamental gardens within the immediate vicinity of the metropolis,” the purpose by which the Society was animated in so doing being the “ promotion of Botany in all its branches, and its application to medicine, arts and manu- factures.”
Besides these, which constitute the only public Botanic gardens in London or its environs, mention must also be made of the Gar- dens of the Royal Horticultural Society, formerly at Chiswick, and now at Wisley, in Surrey. The Horticultural Society has, through. out, excluded the cultivation of medicinal plants from its field of operations, and this is a distinction which holds good, broadly, be- tween “ Horticultural” and “ Botanic” gardens in this country. In view, however, of the importance of the Horticultural Society’s Gardens from the’ cultural point of view, a short account of them will be given at the end of this introduction.
Before proceeding with the individual accounts of these gardens, it will not be without interest to pass briefly in review the salient features which they have in common, as well as those in which they differ from one another.
The arrangement of the plants in the gardens may conveniently be considered first, and affords much that is of interest. The Chel- sea Garden, as we have just seen, was framed, in the main, on the pattern of the herbalists’ gardens; to this we may add that one of the principal aims of its founders was the arrangement of plants in a systematic manner. At the close of the seventeenth century the plants were arranged according to the systems of Ray and Tourne- fort, and, in practice, this scheme is still partly adhered to, as a mat- ter of convenience, in most Botanic Gardens, inasmuch as trees and shrubs are generally grouped apart from herbaceous plants. Towards the end of the eighteenth century we find the Linnean classification supplanting the systems of Ray and Tournefort, to be superseded, in turn, by those of Decandolle and Lindley towards the middle of the last century. Since the re-organization of the Garden in 1902,
H
|
|
: » :
‘MEY ‘ANNOYD
“HI
“HUVd ‘SNEGUVD S,ALBIDOG DINVLOg “IVAOY ‘ANNOUD
“AI
P
Am. Jour. London Botanic Gardens. 453
the sequence of natural orders which has been followed, for the herbaceous plants that are arranged systematically, is that of Bent- ham and Hooker's “ Genera Plantarum.”
At Kew the arrangement adopted by Aiton was that of Linné, to be succeeded, as at Chelsea, by that of Decandolle, and, subsequent- ly, during Sir J. D. Hooker’s directorate, by that of Bentham and Hooker. It must be borne in mind that these changes could only be effectually accomplished with herbaceous plants, and that matters are complicated at Kew by the fact that, in addition to the plants which are arranged systematically, there are many others scattered about for artistic effect. In the present Arboretum, commenced in 1845 by Sir William Hooker, and remodelled by his son, an arrange- ment in regular sequence of natural orders, such as that adopted for herbaceous plants, is not possible, but the Conifere are grouped together to form a Pinetum, and most of the Amentifere are also in close proximity to each other. In the collection of shrubs, or Fru- ticetum, the genera of the same natural order are, as a rule, grouped together. Beyond this, little attempt is made at systematic arrange.
ment. In the possession of an extensive Arboretum, arranged sys-.
tematically, so far as possible, Kew differs from the other two Botanic Gardens in London.
The herbaceous collection at the Regent’s Park Gardens was ar- ranged according to natural orders from the first, and this system has subsisted to the present time, with slight modifications. The plants, instead of being set out in parallel beds and arranged in regu- lar sequence, as at Kew and Chelsea, are disposed in beds of various shapes and sizes; each bed accommodates one natural order, and these are grouped around one another according to their affinities.
When the gardens at Chelsea and Kew were started, medicinal plants were the predominant feature, and subsequently, special col- lections of medicinal plants were formed in both of them. A sec- tion for economic plants was also set aside at Regent’s Park, but, with the exception of a small garden of hardy herbaceous medicinal plants at Kew, and of a belt of shrubs and trees formerly surround- ing the herbaceous ground of the economic collection at Regent’s Park, these have now been merged into the general herbaceous col- lections ; and even in the case of, Kew, by far the larger number of medicinal plants are to be found in the general collection.
In addition to the collections already enumerated, it is to be noted
j
454 London Botanic Gardens. aaa
that alpine and aquatic plants require especial conditions for their successful cultivation, and such conditions are accordingly provided in the shape of rock gardens, water tanks, etc. As these plants, however, play an unimportant part in medicine, we may pass them over.
We have, so far, only considered plants growing out of doors, but a large number of medicinal plants from foreign lands would perish under ordinary conditions in this climate, so that some means had to be found by which the conditions of their habitats could be repro- duced artificially, and this was attained by placing them in plant- houses, heated if necessary. The name of “stoves:’ was given to houses in which artificial heat was employed, as stoves were used for producing the necessary temperature, while those which were not heated artificially were known as “ greenhouses;” and these names have survived to the present day. These houses were origi- nally buildings with large windows, and there is an example of them on an elaborate scale in the orangery at Kew (now Museum No. III), built in 1761 (see Plate V). A stove was erected in the Chelsea Physic Garden as early as 1681. We learn from Evelyn’s “ Diary” that its author went to see the keeper of the “Apothecaries’ garden of simples at Chelsea” on August 7, 1865, and the following re- marks which he makes in this connection give us an idea of the method of heating adopted: “ What was very ingenious was the subterraneous heat conveyed by a stove under the conservatory, all vaulted with brick, so as he has the doores and windowes open in the hardest frosts, secluding only the snow;”’ it is also interesting to record that “the tree bearing jesuit’s bark (Cixchona), which had done such wonders in quartan agues ” was then growing in the col- lection at Chelsea. In 1760 we hear of the construction at Kew of a stove warmed by pipes containing hot air. The method of heat- ing by hot water pipes appears to have been introduced by the Hor- ticultural Society in their garden at Chiswick. Experiments were made with these as early as 1822, but it was not until 1838 that they were brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The system of heating by hot water has now superseded all others.
Improvements in methods of heating were accompanied by ad- vances in other directions, one of the chief of these being the use of iron for the framework of glass houses. The conservatory in the Regent’s Park Gardens, erected in 1845, was the first iron and glass
| dy
| & | | 7 | |
LV (II] MASSAW MON) A710 ‘asnoy LNVIg
ow
"A
j | 4 3 | i 4 | |
TIA
a
a b
| :
Any. Jour. } London Botanic Gardens. 455
house of considerable size in England, and was soon followed by the far-famed Palm House at Kew (Plate VI). The framework of the smaller houses is usually of wood, as the additional strength which has been obtained by the use of iron in larger structures is not needed for buildings of smaller dimensions.
In each of the London gardens there is at least one range of plant houses, a “range” consisting of a series of glass houses in which the temperatures range from 65° to 75° F. in the tropical house or stove, to 45° to 50° F. in the cool house or greenhouse. At Regent’s Park there is a range of three houses for economic plants solely, heated respectively to 65° to 70° F. (stove), 60° to 65° F. (interme- diate house), and 45° to 50° F. (greenhouse). At Kew two houses of a: range, one tropical, the other temperate, are devoted to eco- nomic plants, while at Chelsea the range of three houses, backed by a corridor, is used for the majority of the plants that require to be grown indoors. In addition to these there are larger houses at Kew for the accommodation of general collections of plants from tropical and sub-tropical countries and from the antipodes, such as the Palm House (“ stove” heat) and the temperate house, which consists in principle of a range of houses. The conservatory at the Regent’s Park Gardens corresponds, in part, to the temperate house at Kew, while one of the wings is partitioned off as a small “ Palm House.” Houses for plants requiring special conditions are also provided, but the only ones that need be referred to here are those in which suc- culent plants, such as the various species of A/ve, are grown. Plants from arid regions, such as these, require a dry atmosphere, and special houses are accordingly provided for them at Kew and Re- gent’s Park. Most of the succulents at the Chelsea Physic Garden are grown in one of the pits.
Owing to exigencies of space, very little systematic arrangement is attempted in the case of plants grown under glass, the nearest approach to this being in the Palm House at Kew, where the smaller plants on the benches around the sides are grouped geo- graphically. The method of arranging the plants most commonly adopted is such that the larger plants are placed in the center, ina span-roofed house (see ‘Plate XII), or, i! in a lean-to house, near the wall, while smaller s; ecimens are grown in pots on benches around the sides.
Turning now to the functions by which the gardens are charac-
| | | | | : ‘ 4 | | | 3
456 London Botanic Gardens.
terized, we find that Chelsea and Regent’s Park have, in the main, played an educational rdle, whereas Kew stands out prominently as a center of scientific research and as the cradle of botanical enter- prise in India and the Colonies. The history of the development of the respective gardens is of paramount importance in this connec- tion, and a brief outline of this will, accordingly, be given.
The main considerations which led the members of the Society of Apothecaries to establish a garden at Chelsea, for the cultivation and systematic arrangement of indigenous and exotic plants, were that “their apprentices and others” might “ better distinguish good and useful plants from those that bear resemblance to them, and yet are hurtful, and other the like good purposes.” The garden, it is true, was, to some extent, utilized at first for the cultivation of plants to be converted into drugs for the Society’s use, but this practice was soon abandoned. Ata relatively early period in the history of the Society a “ Demonstrator of Plants” was appointed in connection with the garden; James Petiver, F.R.S., officiated in this capacity as early as 1709, but it was not until 1724 that the Demonstrator of Plants, then Isaac Rand, was appointed to the superintendence of the garden, with the title of Prefectus Horti, or Director of the Garden. The duties of the office of Demonstrator of Plants and Prefectus Horti were defined in detail by a garden committee, on the appointment of William Curtis to the post in 1773. The enumeration of these duties is of special interest, in that it gives us an insight into the nature of the work that the Society was doing at that time, in connection with its garden. That this was chiefly educational in character will be gathered from the provisions in question, which were, briefly, as follows: (1) The Society’s Dem- onstrator of Plants and Prefectus Hortt was to superintend the gar- den and library, and to encourage and cultivate the knowledge of botany among students of the Society; (2) “to demonstrate the plants, especially in the officinal quarter, with their names and uses,” at least once a month, from April to September; (3) “ to make some annual excursion, for two days at least,” in the company of “ two or three ” competent “ botanical members,” for the purpose of collecting plants not commonly found near the metropolis, pre- paratory to a demonstration of the same at the Society’s « General Herborizing ” ; (4) to “ accompany and conduct the students of the
Society in their search after indigenous plants” upon every day ap-
t | | | | | | | |
Am. Jour. Veare.} London Botanic Gardens. 457
pointed for the purpose ; (5) to prepare annually a specified number of herbarium specimens ; (6) “ to attend each private court at the hall during the summer months,” in order to give advice on matters relative to “the private herborizings” and to the management of the garden; he was also recommended to cultivate “ extensive botanical correspondence, both at home and abroad.”
The reputation of the garden as a center for the diffusion of knowl- edge was, moreover, much augmented between 1722 and 1770 by the exertions of Philip Miller, who was appointed gardener in 1722, and who published in 1730 the first catalogue of the officinal plants growing in the Chelsea Garden. This will be considered in greater detail later, but it is of interest to note that, although the book is written in Latin, every plant mentioned has an English name ap- pended to it, a feature which must have considerably enhanced its value to the learner. Two other works of which Philip Miller was the author, viz., the “ Gardener’s Dictionary ” and “ A Short Intro- duction to the Science of Botany,” added in no small degree to the reputation of the Chelsea Garden as an educational center, but the most far-reaching result of Philip Miller’s labors is probably to be found in the fame achieved by his pupils, such as Aiton at Kew, and his own successor at Chelsea, William Forsyth.
In 1829 an extension of the Society’s work was inaugurated, con- sequent upon a resolution of the Garden Committee to the effect that the garden should be made “ more useful to the profession at large than it had hitherto been,” and medical students from the recognized metropolitan schools were admitted, free, to the garden once a week, on the recommendation of their respective teachers. The result was so successful that in the following year the Society’s demonstrator was appointed professor at an increased salary, and lectures were delivered by him once a week to all accredited medi- cal students who chose to take advantage of them. Two medals presented by the Society were also offered for competition annually. A large number of students availed themselves of the privilege granted to them by the Society, and in the same year “ by far the best catalogue of the medicinal plants in the Chelsea Garden ever pub- lished” was issued by the professor, J. L. Wheeler. This work was at the same time a guide to medical botany, and, although the classification adepted was that of Linné, it is of the greatest interest
‘ , i | A | }
458 London Botanic Gardens. “"Gctober, 1808.”
to note that a synopsis according to the system of Jussieu was also added.
This important phase of the Society's work was continued until 1853, and, between the years 1836-1853 the ame of the Chelsea Garden was at its zenith, largely owing to the disinterestedness and boundless activity of that great man, John Lindley, who occupied the post of Professor of Botany and. Prefectus Horti during that period. In 1853, the Society, hampered financially by the expenses involved in this work, decided to relieve the strain by working their garden more economically in the future. The lectures in the garden were discontinued, the office of Prefectus Horti was abolished, and the cultivation of plants requiring artificial heat was abandoned. The annual prizes were, nevertheless, still awarded, and, in 1863, chiefly through the efforts of one of the Society’s members, Nathaniel Bagshaw Ward, the inventor of the “ Wardian Case,” an attempt was made to restore the garden to a semblance of its formér stand- ing. The garden still continued to attract a number of medical students, but these were gradually drawn to the more easily accessi- ble Regent’s Park Gardens. In 1878 a prize competition, open to women only, was instituted by the Society with the object of en- couraging the study of botany among women students. Notwith- standing these spasmodic attempts to infuse new life into the work of the garden, its importance gradually decreased until it sank into insignificance ; it was saved from oblivion during this period, how- ever, by its curator, Thomas Moore, who had been elected to the post in 1848 on the recommendation of Lindley. Thomas Moore was co-editor of the “ Treasury of Botany” with Lindley, and it is chiefly to his labors that we are indebted for that invaluable dic- tionary of the vegetable kingdom ; a work which has probably contributed, in a greater degree than anything else, to make the name of the Chelsea Garden known throughout the world. In 1899 the Trustees of the London Parochial Charities were appointed
_ trustees of the garden, and a committee of management, to be de-.
scribed later, was appointed; new plant houses, a lecture-room and laboratory, etc., were erected, and, in 1902, the garden was formally re-opened. The rdle of the garden is still mainly an educational one ; specimens of living plants are supplied to a number of colleges and schools, the laboratory is used for physiological work by the students of the Royal College of Science, and advanced courses of
.
:
- - $< | 4 | 2 | | q |
i si- | |
.
Am. Jost. Pharm. | London Botanic Gardens. 459
university lectures are delivered in the lecture-hall. Since its reor- ganization, however, the garden has also been used for purposes of research, notably by Mr. Francis Darwin and by Sir William Ramsay.
The Royal Botanic Society’s Gardens in Regent’s Park have had but a short history, and, after what has been said in connection with the Chelsea Garden, it can be summarized in a few lines. The cultivation of medicinal and other economic plants has always been fostered by the Royal Botanic Society, and, in consequence of this, teachers in the medical schools soon found it advantageous to make use of its gardens for the instruction of their pupils; for many years the late Professor Bentley delivered lectures in the gardens at 7.30 o'clock on certain mornings to the students of the Pharmaceutical Society’s School. The distribution of cut specimens of plants to medical schools and other educational institutions (sometimes to the extent of 60,000 specimens per annum) was an innovation which helped to extend the sphere of usefulness of the Regent’s Park Gardens, and these still remain the principal source of supply for fresh botanical specimens to the majority of the medical schools in London. One of the earliest features introduced by the Society into its gardens was an exhibition ground where exhibitions of plants and flowers were held periodically; of later years some of these displays have been developed into very instructive exhibits of botan- ical work done in schools. The museum, erected in 1851, was originally furnished with specimens for educational purposes solely ; the collections have since been considerably extended, more espe- cially by the addition of economic products derived from the vege- table kingdom, but the educational element still preponderates in the collections, which are hardly of sufficient extent to be used for purposes of reference as at Kew. In 1897 a practical gardening school was established by the Society. In connection with this, a portion of the gardens has been specially set aside for horticultural work, and a laboratory, which is also used as a lecture-room, has been erected. The Royal Botanic Society’s Gardens are also utilized as a pleasure-ground by its Fellows and others, but the consideration of this factor hardly comes within our province.
[ be continued,
| . | | | | ‘
460 Helen Abbott Michael. { Peeve.
HELEN ABBOTT MICHAEL. By SAMUEL P. SADTLER.
The subject of this sketch, a former special chemical student of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, and at the time of her death an honorary member of the College, as well as a member of several learned societies, affords a striking example of a life devoted to ennobling literary and scientific pursuits. .
Helen C. De Silver Abbott, daughter of James Abbott and Caro- line Montelius, was born December 23, 1857, in Philadelphia, Pa. Educated under the care of private teachers, she showed special aptitude for music, which she studied both at home and abroad. She was not only a brilliant performer on the piano, but made a thorough study of the principles of music, and might have made her mark, not only as a public performer, but as a composer.
In the early eighties she began to be interested in scientific subjects, and in June, 1882, entered the Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania and attended lectures for two sessions, but did not graduate. Being attracted towards the study of chemistry, she acted as assistant in the Chemical Laboratory of the Philadelphia Polyclinic School for a time, and early in the summer of 1884 she came to the writer to arrange for facilities for carrying out work on plant chemistry. This led to her beginning work at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy Laboratory, where she worked with some inter- ruptions until 1887, when she went to Germany to pursue her studies.
The years spent in the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy Labora- tory were very fruitful in valuable results in plant chemistry, as will be seen from the appended list of published papers during this period. She had special facilities provided by the Board of Trustees of the College in a small research laboratory adjoining the main Chemical Laboratory, and she gathered for herself through private sources abundant supplies of some Mexican and Central American plants that had never before been investigated. But she had also the constant advice and direction in the work of an accomplished botanist and chemist, the late Prof. Henry Trimble.
These papers on plant analysis and chemistry were also of great theoretical interest, abounding, as they did, in most suggestive thought. Dr. H. W. Wiley, of the Department of Agriculture, has said with regard to them that “her studies in tracing the relations existing between chemical composition and botanical species are of the highest interest from the viewpoint of research.”
4 | § i j i
HELEN ABBOTT MICHAEL, 1857-1904.
| mi. —
|
4 q i q
| Helen Abbott Michael. 461
In 1887 she received the distinction of election to membership in
the American Philosophical Society.
She went abroad this year with the intention of pursuing the study of organic chemistry at Berlin, but was advised that the most advanced student in synthetic organic chemistry, as applied to plant substances, was Prof. Arthur Michael, of Tufts College, Mass., who had in 1879 effected the first synthesis of the natural glucosides helicin and salicin. She therefore returned to this country and worked for a time in the laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Boston, under Professor Michael.
She was married to Professor Michael in Philadelphia in the sum- mer of 1888, and again went abroad with him. After a two years’ trip around the world they settled for a time in the Isle of Wight, where, in a private laboratory, with several assistants, they both re- sumed chemical work. Mrs. Michael’s work done during this period was mostly published in German chemical journals.
Professor Michael returned to this country to take the chair of chemistry in the newly-founded Clark University, at Worcester, Mass., and later removed to Boston and resumed his connection with Tufts College.
Mrs. Michael, becoming interested in sociological work in Boston, determined to again take up the study of medicine, and graduated in June, 1903, from Tufts College Medical School with a most bril- liant record. She turned her home on West Cedar Street into a free hospital, and soon found the fullest scope for her attainments and skill as well as for her philanthropic sympathies. This work was done without giving up her interest in art and literature, as is shown by her connection with different literary undertakings in Boston. After a severe attack of the grip in the spring of 1904 her health began to fail and she finally succumbed to heart failure, passing away November 29, 1904.
Mrs. Michael was a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a member of the American Philosophical Society, a member of the German Chemical Society of Berlin, an honorary member of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, a mem- ber of the Academy of Natural Sciences and of the Franklin Insti- tute of Philadelphia.
The list of her published papers, here appended, while not com- plete, covers her contributions to chemical literature.
| | | | |
462
1883. 1884.
1885.
1886,
1887.
1888.
1892.
1894. 1896.
1886.
1895.
1897.
Helen Abbott Michael. 7.
Paper on “‘ Nutritive Value of Condiments.” Published in 1883.
‘Preliminary Analysis of the Bark of Fonquieria Splendens.’’ Read before Am. Phil. Soc., Nov. 7, 1884.
‘Yucca Augustifolia, a Chemical Study.” Read before Am. Phil. Soc., Dec. 18, 1885.
‘*On Hematoxylin in the Bark of Saraca Indica.’’ From Proceedings of Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Nov. 30, 1886,
‘*Certain Chemical Constituents of Plants Considered in Relation to Their Morphology and Evolution.’’ Abstract of paper read before Buffalo meeting of A. A. A. S., 1886.
‘** Preliminary Analysis of a Honduras Plant called ‘Chichipati.’’’ Also read before the Buffalo meeting of the A. A. A. S., 1886,
Paper on ‘‘ Phlox Carolina.’’ Read before Am, Phar. Assoc., at Provi- dence, R. I., Sept., 1886. '
‘*Plant Analysis as an Applied Science.” Lecture before Franklin Insti- tute, Jan. 17, 1887.
‘*Plant Chemistry as Illustrated in the Evolution of Sugar from Sorg- hum.’’ Delivered before the Alumni Association of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, Feb. 8, 1887. .
‘*Comparative Chemistry of Higher and Lower Plants.’’ Extracted from American Naturalist, Aug. and Sept., 1887.
“*The Chemical Basis of Plant Forms.’’ Reprinted from Journal of the Franklin Institute, Sept., 1887.
**On the Occurrence of Solid Hydrocarbons in Plants.’’ AM. Jour. PHAR., July, 1888, jointly with Henry Trimble.
‘* Ueber eine neue Bildungsweise von aromatischen Nitriten.” By H. A. M. and John Jeanprétre. Berlin. Berichte, No. 237.
“Zur Kenntniss der Mandelsdure und ihres Nitrits.’” By H. A. M. and John Jeanprétre. Berlin. Berichte, No. 248.
‘‘Zur Kenntniss der Addition von Brom und Chlor zur festen Croton- saure.’’ By Helen Abbott Michael.
(Separat Abdruck aus dem Journal fiir praktische Chemie, neue Folge, Band 46; Leipzig, 1892.)
‘*Zur Constitution des Phloretins.’’ By Helen Abbott Michael. Berlin. Berichte, No. 488.
‘*A Review of Recent Synthetic Work in the Class of Carbohydrates.’’ By H. Abbott Michael. Reprinted from the Journal of the Frankiin Institute, Sept., 1896.
LITERARY PAPERS.
“Science in Philosophy and Art.’’ By ‘‘Celen Sabbrin.’’ Wm. F. Fell & Co., Philadelphia, 1886. -
‘The Drama in Relation to Truth.’’ By Helen Abbott Michael. Read before the New England Women’s Club, Dec. 10, 1894. Published in © Poet Lore, March, 1895.
‘*Woman and Freedom in Whitman.”’ Read before the Walt Whitman Fellowship of Boston, Nov. 19, 1896. Published in Poet Lore, April and June, 1897.
' |
Hot Alcohol_—Combination Percolator. 463
A SIMPLE ARRANGEMENT FOR PERCOLATION WITH HOT ALCOHOL.
By H. M. GorpDIN, Northwestern University, School of Pharmacy.
Most hot extraction apparatus have the disadvantage of being costly and breakable and are generally suitable for small amounts of drug only.
By means of the following simple arrangement any reasonable amount of drug can be exhausted with hot alcohol in ordinary per- colators.
The arrangement consists in rolling a coil of rubber tubing around the percolator and passing a stream of hot water through the tubing during the percolation.
The water can be heated in a separate vessel or obtained from any other source and the percolator kept well covered to prevent undue evaporation.
Such an arrangement requires, of course, a much larger amount of alcohol than a Soxhlet, for example, but as the alcohol can be
recovered this is no particular disadvantage.
A COMBINATION PERCOLATOR AND SHAKING TUBE FOR THE ASSAY OF ALKALOIDAL DRUGS? By H. M. Gorpin, Northwestern University, School of Pharmacy.
For the assay of some alkaloidal drugs, for example, coca and belladonna, the U.S.P. of 1900 directs to shake the powdered drug in an Erlenmeyer flask with a mixture of ether, chloroform and ammonia for a certain length of time and then transfer the mixture of drug and powder to a small percolator in which the drug is exhausted by percolation with a mixture of ether and chloroform.
For the assay of some other drugs, for example, aconite, the pharmacopeeia directs to use the same method, but substitutes another menstruum for the exhaustion of the drug.
1 Presented at the meeting of the American Pharmaceutical Association September, 1905.
2Presented at the meeting of the American Pharmaceutical Association September, 1905.
| ‘ |
464 Combination Percolator and Shaking Tube. {*"GctSver
It is easy to see that there lurks a source of error in the opera- tion of transferring the mixture of drug and menstruum from one vessel to another, particularly in the case of ethereal menstrua, which always have a great tendency to “creep” to the outer sides of the vessel.
In order to avoid the necessity of transferring the mixture of drug and menstruum from one vessel to another, I have devised a simple apparatus by means of which both the shaking and the per- colation of the drug with the suitable menstruum is carried out in one and the same vessel.
The apparatus (see accompanying figure) consists of a cylindrical tube drawn out at both ends so that it has the shape of an ordinary percolator, but a neck like an ordinary bottle. The main body of the tube has an inner diameter of 25 millimeters and is 200 milli- meters long. ‘The lower, longer but narrower drawn-out part has an inner diameter of 14 millimeters and is 30 millimeters long. At the juncture of this narrow tube to the main body of the tube there are three rather deep indentations in the narrow tube.! The upper bottle neck-shaped end of the tube has an inner diameter of 17 millimeters and is 10 millimeters long. The whole apparatus is made of strong glass of about I millimeter wall thickness.
The tube is used in the following way: A piece of cotton is placed in a piece of cheese-cloth and then pushed up from below with the cloth upwards into the narrow tube so that the plug reaches the indentations and closes the tube rather tightly. The plug is then followed by more cotton so as to nearly fill the narrow tube and the latter is closed by a good perforated cork, through which passes a thin glass stop-cock.
In the case of ethereal menstrua which percolate easily, a small circular disc of filter paper can be placed on the top of the stop- cock. In this case the percolate will be perfectly clear.
After closing the stop-cock the weighed-out drug is introduced through the open end of the tube, and after adding the proper
1Of the three indentations only two are shown in the figure. The indenta- tions on the outside are, of course, protuberances on the inside of the tube.
Avy, Jone, Pharmaceutical Preparations. 465
menstruum the apparatus is closed with a goodcork. The tube can now be shaken any length of time without the plug becoming dislodged.
After shaking the tube the prescribed length of time it is set aside with the stop cock downwards till the drug has well settled and the percolation then finished as with an ordinary percolator.
The shaking of the tube should always be done in the plane of it, as violent side motions are liable to throw out the stopper of the stop-cock unless it bs tied down.
Any maker of chemical glassware when given the description of this percolator tube can make it in a few minutes at a very insignifi- cant cost and in any desirable size.
The dimensions here given are suitable for 10 grams of drugs.
THE MANUFACTURE OF PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARA- TIONS! By A. C. ZEIG, PH.C.
The preparing of medicaments for healing the sick and the wounded, no doubt antedates pharmacy as a profession by many centuries. Its evolution is the evolution of pharmacy itself through many centuries of struggle for recognition as a profession, the sole specialty of which was to be the preparing and dispensing of medi- cine in accordance with the will of the physician.
The adoption of pharmacopceias and standard formule centuries ago, no doubt, was a great aid to the apothecary of that time, and history records the fact that a pharmacopceia was adopted as the official standard as early as A.D. 1150, at Salerno, in the Kingdom of Naples, Italy, and was recognized as the official standard through- out Europe a long time after. Every apothecary was compelled, under oath, to manufacture all the medicaments according to the official pharmacopeeia.
The first work corresponding to the modern idea of a pharma- copeeia, which likewise received legal sanction in Europe, was the work of one Valerius Cordus, at Nuremberg, Germany, published about 1546. All druggists were directed to prepare their medicines according to the directions therein laid down.
1 Read at the Lewis and Clark Pharmaceutical Congress, Portland, Ore., July, 1905.
| | |
{ | | | | i { \
466 Pharmaceutical Preparations. 43.50:
A work published in 1542 by Brother Bernardino Laredo, at the convent of Valverde near Seville, gives some insight into the nature of pharmaceutical preparations popular at that time. He describes
_ the medicines in use at that period as laxatives, pills, powders,
troches, narcotics, syrups, oils, decoctions, ointments, salves, plas- ters, confections and conserves,
With the appliances or apparatus limited and crude, it is remark- able to observe the list of products manufactured by the pharmacist at that period.
The theriaca of to-day is but one example of the forms of medi- cation in use in Ancient Rome. The confection of opium, recognized in some of the European pharmacopeeias, is simply a substitute for the exceedingly complex and unscientific electuary known as theriaca or mithridate, invented by Andromachus, the head physi- cian of Nero, a position which, no doubt, demanded a great deal of skill and genius. This celebrated electuary has been handed down to us through eighteen centuries. Andromachus is said to have introduced it as an improvement on the, at that time, famous mith- ridate. While the composition of the two electuaries were about the same, theriaca contained vipers’ flesh and other less active ingre- dients, principally aromatics, constituting in all about sixty in number. The active ingredient would appear to have been opium, about I per cent., but its popularity in those days of degenerate Rome was supposed to be as a preventive and antidote for poisoning. The fact of its containing a great many choice drugs made it im- possible for it to be manufactured outside of the great trade centers of.Italy. It was manufactured in Venice during the week of the great annual fair, the yearly gathering for business and pleasure.
During the first half of the last century, the pharmacist of this country manufactured all his galenicals, and purchased his mineral acids, also the organic acids such as tartaric, citric, oxalic and ben. zoic and the principal heavy chemicals in use at that time.
The introduction of a limited number of fluid extracts into the pharmacopeeia of 1850 marks the beginning of a period notable in the history of pharmaceutical manufacture in this country, inasmuch as this class of preparations of American origin has become thor- oughly popular and the number increased in subsequent revisions of the United States Pharmacopceia, so that it embraces eighty-eight official fluid extracts in the revision of 1890, besides those recog-
q
Am-Jour. Pharm.) Pharmaceutical Preparations. 467
nized as semi-official in the National Formulary. In addition to these, there are prepared in every pharmaceutical laboratory about 300 unofficial fluids, which constitute part of the stock on hand. Large quantities of fluid extracts are annually manufactured in the United States. In considering, for example, cascara sagrada, whose habitat is on the coast, and for the supply of which we shall always have to depend upon the drug gathered in this and adjoining States, available data show that during the season of 1904 there were shipped from this coast to the different parts of the globe, about 1,500,000 pounds of cascara bark, the greater portion of which passed into the hands of manufacturers to be made into fluid ex- tracts, such as the U.S.P., the bitterless and the aromatic.
Concerning the alkaloids, it may be said that the extraction of alkaloids was in its infancy at the middle of the century, for although quinine had been on the market several decades, its use was limited, owing to the high price it commanded. The same was true regard- ing morphine. Chloroform, ether, guncotton and collodion were in use before the Civil War, while subsequently glycerin came into use as a solvent in manufacturing pharmacy and-made possible important advances in skin medication, resulting in the introduction of the official glycerites into the Pharmacopceia of 1870. Large quantities. of glycerin are annually employed in the laboratory. Its use as an antiphlogistic in the form of a paste is of recent date and promises. great possibilities.
The demand for medical supplies during the Civil War acted as a stimulus to pharmaceutic manufacture and resulted in the establish- ment of laboratories on a large scale. In consequence of the active demand for pharmaceutical products, chemists devised new methods for the extraction and purification of alkaloids, the manufacture of chloroform, ether, nitrous ether, as well as fluid and solid extracts, resulting in the cold-process extraction of drugs in use at the present day. A vast number of new materia medica products were exploited and it was the beginning of an era in pharmaceutic manufacture, which for its scope, the number and character of products manufac- tured, the mechanical devices and eee employed, exceeds all efforts of preceding centuries.
The great activity in the field of manufacturing pharmacy no doubt to some degree justified the alarm felt by some ot the retail pharmacists, who maintained that the manu acturers were encroach.
; J
468 Pharmaceutical Preparations. an.
ing upon the field of the retailer and depriving him of part of his revenue, or such as was derived from manufacturing his own prepa- rations, maintaining, of course, that every pharmacist should manu- facture his pharmaceuticals as much as possible. While such a view of the matter would seem to be the correct one, and in harmony with the views held thirty or forty years ago, the conditions have changed, especially during the past thirty years. The addition of a vast number of products to the materia medica from vegetable, mineral, and animal sources, and the lack</