“Maizo-Lithium, the remarkable uric acid solvent, is a nascent chemic union of maizenic acid, obtained from green corn silk, with the alkaline base lithium forming maizenate lithium, of which the mother liquid carries two grains to each drachm.” Standard works on organic chemistry and pharmacology, such as Beilstein’s Organische Chemie and Cushny’s Pharmacology and Therapeutics, do not mention maizenic acid. Neither is it mentioned in comprehensive bibliographies of phyto-chemical investigations, such as Huseman-Hilger’s Die Pflanzenstoffe or Wehmer’s Die Pflanzenstoffe. The first to use the term appears to have been a Dr. Vautier (_Arch. méd. belg._), but his publication is not available to the laboratory. Rademacher and Fischer (_Amer. Jour. Pharm._, 1886, lviii, 369) claim to have isolated the substance from green corn-silk, but the record of their work is unsatisfactory and indefinite and therefore their results could not be verified; it seems unlikely, however, that they isolated a pure proximate principle. Examination of Maizo-Lithium demonstrated the absence of bromids, chlorids, phosphates, sulphates, acetates, benzoates, salicylates and tartrates--combinations in which lithium might be expected to be present. The presence of a citrate, however, was shown by the usual tests. Lithium and sodium were present. Free acid was absent. Determination of lithium citrate and of sodium citrate indicated the presence of a total of about 3.7 gm. of these two salts in each 100 c.c. of the preparation, or about 2.1 grains in each fluidram. About 25 per cent. of the total salts appeared to be lithium citrate. The examination, therefore, does not demonstrate the presence of “maizenate of lithium,” but does show that Maizo-Lithium contains a mixture of lithium citrate and sodium citrate. Tests for citric acid and citrates were made on a commercial specimen of fluidextract of corn-silk. The results were negative, although the preparation had an acid reaction to litmus. The presence of maizenate of lithium in Maizo-Lithium--in fact, its actual existence--thus failed of demonstration. In view of this fact, it was felt that the burden of proof rested on the promoter of Maizo-Lithium to supply some satisfactory evidence with regard to this substance. The following letter was therefore, sent to James F. Ballard: