The constitution of eriodictyol, of homoeriodictyol and of hesperitin / by Frank Tutin.
- Tutin, Frank.
- Date:
- [1910?]
Licence: In copyright
Credit: The constitution of eriodictyol, of homoeriodictyol and of hesperitin / by Frank Tutin. Source: Wellcome Collection.
5/14 page 2056
![Shortly after the appearance of the first paper by Power and Tutin on eriodictyon leaves (loc. cit.), a communication on the same subject was published by G. Mossier (Annalen, 1907, 351, 233). This author recorded the isolation of a substance possessing the formula C1GH]406, designated “ eriodictyonon,” which was evidently identical with homoeriodictyol. Mossier, however, did not succeed in isolating any eriodictyol. After having published the account of their work on the con¬ stitution of homoeriodictyol, Dr. Power and the present author received from Dr. Mossier a reprint of a paper communicated by him to the Academy of Sciences in Vienna (Sitzungsber. K. Akad. TFiss. Wien, 1907, 116, ii, June, 1907). In this communication Mossier, who was unaware of the more recent work of the above- mentioned authors, admits that his “ eriodictyonon ” is identical with homoeriodictyol, and sets forth the conclusion that this sub¬ stance is represented by one of the following formulae: HO MeO C(OH)« CO ^>OH OH or CH0 HO MeO CO C(OH)*< OH OH CH, This last publication by Mossier was replied to by Dr. Power and the present author (Proc., 1907, 23, 243), when it was pointed out that neither of the formulae proposed by Mossier could be correct, since compounds possessing such a structure could not yield phloroglucinol. One statement made by Mossier, however, was in direct conflict with the views which the present author, in conjunction with Dr. Power, had expressed regarding the constitution of homo¬ eriodictyol, namely, that the substance in question was optically active. The last-mentioned authors were unable to confirm this, and, since the correctness of their conclusions regarding homo¬ eriodictyol have now been fully proved, it is evident that the above statement of Mossier must have been based on an incorrect observation. It appeared to the present author that there was one possible alternative to the formula which had been suggested by him in conjunction with Dr. Power for homoeriodictyol, but which was not at all probable, namely, a structure related to the second formula proposed by Mossier, as follows:](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b30616840_0005.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
