The question very naturally arises, why do not the manufacturers prepare the officinal Hoffman’s anodyne, or why do they not furnish the ethereal oil of the Pharmacopœia, that the apothecary may make it himself by simple mixing? There are several reasons. 1st, the apothecary, the physician, and to a large extent the consumer, have become accustomed to the present commercial preparation, and the majority, both of apothecaries and physicians, would reject the true officinal spirit, if presented to them, as not correctly made; 2d, druggists, as a general rule, would refuse to pay the greatly increased price, absolutely required to remunerate the manufacturer, for the greater consumption of time and materials, and increased skill and risk in manipulation. Having, on several occasions, prepared the officinal oil of wine and Hoffman’s anodyne, I can corroborate the statements of Mr. Kent, at p. 255, relative to the small yield, and consequent costliness of officinal heavy oil of wine. The so-called oil of wine, which is imported into this city from England, and which is sometimes employed for making the officinal spirit, is an ethereal solution of etherole, one specimen yielding only seven per cent. of it. And 3d, in the preparation of ether, the residue left in the still after the rectification of the ether above 54° Beaumé, must either be thrown away, or converted to the only use to which it can be applied with advantage, viz., Hoffman’s anodyne. It is for this reason that the price of the commercial “anodyne” is so low, being about fifteen cents per pound. {216}
It may become a question in the next revision of the Pharmacopœia, whether it would not be better to reconstruct the formula for compound spirit of ether, somewhat on the plan of the manufacturers, or that quoted at page [213,] from Lewis’s Dispensatory, so as to render it more practicable and likely to be followed. Of course it should be done with due consideration of the difficulties involved in the production of a spirit of uniform strength.—American Journal of Pharmacy.
ON GUTTA TABAN. BY BERTHOLD SEEMANN.
The Taban (Isonandra Gutta, Hook.), which was formerly so plentiful [in Singapore], has long since been extinct. A few isolated trees may here and there occur, but they are very scarce, and I have not been able to obtain even the sight of one. Several of the white residents keep in their gardens as a curiosity, a plant or two, but they grow very slowly. It must ever be an object of regret, that on the first introduction of the Taban gum, its proper name was not promulgated. Now everybody in Europe and America speaks of Gutta Percha, when, in fact, all the time they mean the Gutta Taban. The substance termed by the Malays “Gutta Percha” is not the produce of the Isonandra Gutta, Hook., but that of a botanically unknown tree, a species of Ficus, I am told. The confusion of these two names has become a popular error—an error which science will have to rectify.
The exportation of the indigenous Gutta Taban from Singapore commenced in 1844, but as early as the end of 1847, all, {217} or at least most, of the trees had been exterminated. That at present shipped from the place, is brought in coasting vessels from the different ports of Borneo, Sumatra, the Malayan peninsula, and Jahore Archipelago.[17] The difference existing in its appearance and property is owing to the intermixture of Gutta Percha, Jelotong, Gegrek, Litchu, and other inferior Guttas, made by the natives in order to increase the weight.—Though far from being extinct in the Indian Archipelago, Gutta Taban will every year be more difficult to obtain, as the coast region is said to be pretty well cleared, and a long transport from the interior must, by augmenting the labor, increase the value of the article.
[17] “The total export of Gutta Taban from Singapore has been:—
| In 1844 | 1 picul |
| In 1845 | 169 picul |
| In 1846 | 5,364 picul |
| In 1847 | 9,296 picul |
| In 1848 to the 1st of July | 6,768 picul |
| Total | 21,598 piculs. |
valued at 274,190 Spanish dollars. About 270,000 trees have probably been felled during the three and a half years that the trade has existed, and the value of each tree has thus on an average, been about a dollar.”—J. R. Logan, “On the Range of the Gutta Taban Collectors, and present Amount of Import into Singapore.” Mr. Logan has promised an article on the various substances intermixed with the Taban, a subject of the highest interest; but he has hitherto disappointed his readers.
A few months after the publication of your first account of the plant, in January, 1847, an article on the same subject appeared in the Journal of the Indian Archipelago, by one of its most able contributors, Dr. T. Oxley. As that article contains many statements not contained in yours, and as it may possibly have escaped your notice, I shall make a few extracts from it.