Chemical examination of kô-sam seeds (Brucea sumatrana, Roxb.) / by Frederick B. Power and Frederic H. Lees.

  • Power, Frederick B. (Frederick Belding), 1853-1927.
Date:
[1903]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Chemical examination of kô-sam seeds (Brucea sumatrana, Roxb.) / by Frederick B. Power and Frederic H. Lees. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    7/24 (page 5)
    graine de Ko-sam renferme comma principe dominant la quassine, ainsi qu'il 6tait permis de le prevoir.” “ En somme, le Ko-sam doit son action a la quassine, et il y a bel age que l’emploi de ce principe actif est populaire en Europe par l’usage quotidien que l’on en fait dans le Quassia amara, si bien que le nouveau remade contre la dysenterie de M. Dybowski n’a rien de nouveau, les Abyssins l’employant de temps sans doute immemorial.” “ Cette 6tude aura pour resultat de mettre les faits relatifs a ce pretendu nouveau medicament a leur veritable point scienti- fique, et, des lors, les medecins coloniaux pourront poursuivre leurs experiences sur le Ko-sam en toute connaissance de cause.” The conclusions of Heckel and Schlagdenhauffen have elicited some comments from Dybowski (loc. cit., No. 48, pp. 129-131), but, unfortunately, these are not altogether con- sistent, and, therefore, only tend to produce further confusion. Dybowski remarks that Schlagdenhauffen has made of Ko-sam a very complete analysis and a conscientious study, but that the conclusions Heckel draws therefrom are totally wanting in scientific precision. In the chemical portion of their paper they are said to err in two respects, which he will indicate. It appears to him, and an examina- tion made by Bertrand likewise leads him to presume, that the fruits of Brucea sumatrana contain quassin. But to be able to make such an affirmation, and not give an d priori conclusion, it would have been better, in his opinion, to precisely characterise this substance by an elementary analysis, and by determining its crystalline form, melting point, solubility, etc. None of these data have been recorded, and the negative characters, together with the bitterness of the substance, to which Heckel appears to attach so much import- ance, and upon which he bases his conclusion, are considered inadequate and not to permit of any scientific deduction. Dybowski thinks that Schlagdenhauffen has overlooked the most interesting point in the study of Ko-sam, and that as he has mentioned the occurrence of “ another bitter principle ” he should have searched for this, the rest being of little import- ance. He then proceeds to state that Bertrand has isolated a glucoside having extremely active properties, and that it is the discovery of this substance, not the presence of quassin, which entitles Ko-sam to be regarded as a new remedy for dysentery. A still later publication (loc. cit., No. 50, pp. 196-201) embraces a conjoint study of Ko-sam, in which the botanical