Economic Botany

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 47–50 | Cite as

A study of the cyanogenetic content and toxicity of the fruit of selected species ofCotoneaster

  • Robert H. Tidwell
  • Jack L. Beal
  • Dhanooprasad G. Patel
  • Arthur Tye
  • Popat N. Patil


Cyanogenetic glycosides were found to be present in the leaf, bark and fruit of eight species of Cotoneaster. A quantitative determination of cyanogenetic material was made on the leaf, bark and fruit of C. divaricate at three different periods in the growing season. The leaf was found to have the greatest percentage of cyanogenetic glycosides and the fruit the least. Seasonal variation was found to be greatest in the fruit where it was demonstrated that the cyanogenetic content decreased as the fruit aged. Toxicity of the fruit of C. divaricata was studied in the dog, cat and rat. On the basis of the cyanogenetic glycoside determinations and the toxicity studies it was concluded that classification of these eight species of Cotoneaster as poisonous was not warranted.


Bark Economic Botany Toxicity Study Fresh Fruit Cyanic Acid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Bumside, J. E. 1954. Procedure for qualitative determination of hydrocyanic acid by the sodium picrate test. Georgia Vet. 6(3): 10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Datta, S. K. 1955. Chemical investigation of IndianCotoneaster frígida. I. Chemical composition of fruit pulps. Jour. Indian Chem. Soc. 32: 344.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gettler, A. O. and J. O. Baine. 1938. The toxicology of cyanide. Amer. Jour. Med. Sci. 195: 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guignard, M. L. 1907. New examples of Rosaceae which produce hydrocyanic acid. Compt. rend. Acad. Sci. 143: 451.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herissey, H. 1907. The occurrence of prulaurasin inCotoneaster microphylla Wall. Arch. Pharm. 245: 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    —. 1907. The existence of prulaurasin inCotoneaster microphylla. Jour. Pharm. Chem. 24: 537.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kingsbury, J. M. 1964. Poisonous plants of the United States and Canada. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller, L. C. and M. L. Tainter. 1944. Estimation of the ED50 and its error by means of logarithmic-probit graph paper. Proc. Soc. Exptl. Biol. Med. 57: 261.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muenscher, W. G. 1951. Poisonous plants of the United States. 2nd ed. Macmillan, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plouvier, V. 1936. The presence of amygdonitrile glucoside in the genus Cotoneaster and the leaves ofCydonia vulgaris. Pers. Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. (Paris) 202: 352.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    —. 1942. Biochemical study of some Rosaceae. Ann. sci. nat. Botan. 3: 204.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenthaler, L. 1926. The hydrocyanic acid question. XVIII. New plants containing HCN. Pharm. Acta Helv. 1: 167.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    —. 1929. The hydrocyanic acid question. XXVI. New occurrences of hydrocyanic acid. Pharm. Acta. Helv. 4: 196.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Watt, J. M. and M. G. Breyer-Brandwijk. 1962. Medicinal and poisonous plants of southern and eastern Africa. E. and S. Livingstone Ltd., London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert H. Tidwell
  • Jack L. Beal
  • Dhanooprasad G. Patel
  • Arthur Tye
  • Popat N. Patil
    • 1
  1. 1.College of PharmacyOhio State UniversityColumbus

Personalised recommendations