copoeia, and consequently the preparation is about half strength. The following formula will produce a preparation such as desired:

Dissolve the morphine and meconic acid in 100 parts of water by heat, cool, add alcohol and sufficient distilled water to make 1000 parts.

Chemical Laboratory, Cincinnati College of Pharmacy, Supervision of Wm. Simonson, Ph.G.

MR. MAISCH: I wish to say that the solution of bimeconate of morphine was intrcduced many years ago under the supposition that morphine existed in opium in combination with meccnic acid, and that in making such a solution, the morphine was in its natural condition. That such is not the case has been abundantly proved. I believe Fläckiger was the first to show that the percentage of meconic acid in opium was insufficient to saturate all the alkaloids present, and it was subsequently shown by different investigators in different countries, and last, by Dr. Dohme, that the morphine exists in opium combined with sulphuric acid, and not with meconic acid.

MR. HALLBERG: If it were not for the statement of Professor Maisch, it would be desirable that the formula be referred to the committee on the National Formulary. But, as far as my knowledge goes, the solution of bimeconate of morphine is not of sufficient importance to warrant its being so referred.

MR. FENNEL: In some sections of the country the solution is still prescribed a great deal, and some dispense a colored solution, while others give one that is absolutely colorless. This creates confusion in the mind of the practitioner, and it would be advisable to adopt some definite formula.

MR. MAISCH: Many years ago, I used to make the meconic acid from opium, and also the morphine, combining them again to obtain this solution, and no attempt was made to purify from coloring matter. The meconic acid may easily be obtained free from color, and the solution is then always colorless, as now used in England. The colored solution prepared from opium is made by a formula which, I think, was originated by Edward Parrish about thirty years ago. I regard the preparation as of no earthly value, compared with other morphine compounds, but if it is called for, it has to be supplied. The Section now adjourned until 3:30 p. m.

SECOND SESSION.-SATURDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 16.

The Section met at 3:30 o'clock.

The minutes of the preceding session were read by the Secretary pro temp., and on motion were approved.

The first business in order was the nomination and election of officers, and no further nominations being made, the Chairman was, on motion of

Mr. Whelpley seconded by Mr. Simon, directed to cast the ballot of the Section for the nominees presented at the previous session. The chair cast the ballot, and Messrs. Fennel and Ryan were declared duly elected Chairman and Secretary for the ensuing year.

Mr. Alpers, from the Committee on the Chairman's Address, read the following report:

Your Committee report that having carefully gone over the address of the Chairman, they find one recommendation in particular worthy of consideration. It is the one relating to the publication of a periodical report on the modus operandi of the manufacture, composition, doses and uses of new remedies; but we fail to see how the suggestion as to the financial considerations could be carried out.

W. C. ALPERS,

DAVID M. R. CULBRETH,
HUGO W. C. MARTIN.

The report was, on motion, received, and Mr. Remington requested the Chairman to explain somewhat in detail his views concerning the proposed periodical report.

CHAIRMAN HALLBERG: Briefly stated, my idea is this: That inasmuch as every retail pharmacist cannot send out a little compilation of his own describing new remedies, preparations, etc., like the National Formulary, giving bases, principles, indications, etc., it occurred to me that if this work could be delegated to two or three men who would undertake to do it, that pharmacists would be very glad to obtain a certain number of copies, and, of course, defray the expenses of publication. In other words, if a Committee were appointed to carry on this work, they would obtain from say 100 members, orders for an average of ten copies each of such a little pamphlet, which would be a thousand copies. If it would require $100 to get out this report, they could then be supplied to pharmacists, possibly ten copies for one dollar, and by them distributed among the physicians in their neighborhood. As soon as there was sufficient material on hand, the publication of another edition could be undertaken. I should judge about four times a year, there would be sufficient material on hand to present to the profession. This would give the pharmacist a means of fighting the devil, as we might say, with his own weapon. You know very well that that is how the manufacturers build up a demand for their goods, and force the pharmacist practically to handle them. By such an associated effort the retail druggist could cope with them, and if this were followed up by samples of the preparations, there is no reason why it should not be as effective as it is with the products of larger establishments. I will say, furthermore, that I am willing to be one of the three to undertake this as an experiment. The Association would not be at any expense at all, and I would like to try it.

MR. MARTIN: The reason why the Committee brought in such a report as it did, was that they could not see how the finances could be taken care of. According to the Chairman's suggestion, it seems that three men would be willing to offer their services, and make a trial of the affair. It is doubtful, of course, whether you could get three men who would be willing to go to the expense of publishing a work of that kind, seemingly at their own expense, and take their chances of getting back their money by charging something for the publication.

MR. RUSBY: I would inquire how the pharmacists whose products would be entitled to entry in this pamphlet would be limited; how large must an establishment be before

DISCUSSION ON THE CHAIRMAN'S RECOMMENDATION.

203 its products would be excluded from it-or would you be willing to include in it the products of any house, a large manufacturing house or small retail pharmacy?

THE CHAIRMAN: It is difficult to draw the line between what you would call a manufacturing house and a retail pharmacy, because there are some that occupy an intermediate position. What originally led to the proposition was the comparative success I obtained in getting out an epitome of the National Formulary, and it was intended that this should include the preparations of the National Formulary and similar semi-official preparations; and preparations proprietary in character would not be incorporated, according to my idea. I might probably say that I am satisfied that there are three men in this Association who will be glad to take hold of this project as an experiment, and without expense to the Association.

MR. REMINGTON: With this statement from yourself, and the fact that it has been the subject of considerable thought, I think the principal objection made by the Committee has been removed. As I heard the suggestion, it seemed to me that it was a very valuable one. I suppose this would go out under the auspices of the Section?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.

MR. REMINGTON: The American Pharmaceutical Association would then be responsible for it, as it would be published under its auspices, and not under the individual names of the committee. Of course, if the work is well done, and I have no doubt that it will be, it would be a very useful way of drawing attention to this Association and increasing its usefulness, and also bringing to the attention of physicians the formulas and processes which are non-secret, which have been tried; and not only that, but it would be the means of calling attention to a matter which has been agitated for a number of. years, and about which the State Pharmaceutical Associations have sent delegations to the Medical Associations-that is, to employ these very things. From that point of view alone, I think it would be a valuable aid to this Association. I cannot see any objection to it, if it is carried out in that way. I hope that the Section will authorize the appointment of such a committee.

MR. THOMPSON: I would move that this question, with this additional information, be now referred back to the Committee for a further report and discussion.

MR. MARTIN: I would state that we will report immediately, without any further consultation at all, because it was only the financial question which bothered us. That difficulty being removed, the Committee is unanimous in recommending the adoption of the Chairman's suggestion.

MR. REMINGTON: This work ought to go out under the auspices of the Association, and not the Section alone. If this committee is appointed and the matter is adopted here, the report, before it goes out, can be submitted to the Council, which will act, in the interim, upon it, and it will go out with the Association's imprint upon it. I will therefore make the following motion: "That the suggestions embodied in the Chairman's address be adopted by this Section; that a committee of three be appointed to take the matter in charge, that committee, when they have completed their labors, to submit the result of their work to the Council of the American Pharmaceutical Association; and that the books be published under the direction of this committee, with the approval of the Council."

I think any difficulty can be obviated by the Council authorizing its chairman to act for it in the matter of examining the work, should that be necessary.

MR. SIMON: The Council surely has the right to appoint a committee of either one or two, and such committee represents the Council.

Mr. Good seconded the motion, which was then put to a vote and duly carried.

Mr. Whelpley presented the following, which, on motion of Mr. Hechler, seconded by Mr. Voss, was accepted and adopted.

WHITE MOUNTAINS, July 15, 1892.

The Committee on Prize Essays recommend that the Ebert Prize for 1891 be awarded to J. U. Lloyd, author of the paper entitled "A Scheme of Assaying."

A. B. PRESCOTT,
H. M. WHELPLEY,
HENRY TRIMBLE.

The reading of papers was then resumed, the first presented being:

THE BOTANICAL NAMES OF THE U. S. PHARMACOPIA.

BY HENRY H. RUSBY, M. D.

In offering for discussion this revision of the botanical names of our Pharmacopoeia, I wish to remind you that there are several distinct questions involved, and to emphasize the importance of considering and deciding each of these questions upon its own merits, unbiased by considerations of the related questions.

My revision refers only to the botanical names contained in the definitions, not extending to the titles proper. For example, we have the title Brayera, the corrected definition of which will be "The female inflorescence of Hagenia Abyssinica, (Bruce) Gmelin.” Now it is suggested that it is inconsistent to use the title Brayera after finding that the botanical name is really not Brayera, but Hagenia; and some claim that we should change the name Brayera in the title as well as in the definition. The same rule would require us to change the titles Asafoetida, Aspidium, Calumba, Cardamomum, Chimaphila, Cimicifuga, Cinchona, Gaultheria, Leptandra, Myristica, Prinos, Prunus Virginiana, Quassia, and possibly some others. My own feeling is that this is not advisable, and not in accordance with the instructions of the Convention. The titles and the names of the definitions stand on entirely different planes. The title is the common or working name of an article or product used by us, and is common property, its whole object and design being our convenience and the safety of the public. This is a sufficient reason for not making changes in such titular names. But I will say further that it is not true that another name in the title would be any more accurate from a scientific point of view, because such titles are not in any sense scientific names. They are names used in our art, which may or may not agree with the names of the plants from which the articles are derived.

The names of the definition, on the other hand, are in no sense our property. Such a name pertains only to botanical science, and its object is to inform us, with the greatest possible scientific accuracy and precision,

BOTANICAL NAMES OF THE U. S. PHARMACOPŒIA.

205

as to the name by which botanists designate the plant from which our article is derived. We have no right to make such names for ourselves, or to make use of those names which are not approved by the science with whose usages we should be at the most perfect agreement. In other words, we should, at each revision, make in the names of the definitions whatever changes are necessary to keep pace with the advance of botanical science, and we should understand clearly that in this there is no inconvenience to us involved, so long as the titles remain unchanged. It is with this view that I contribute the following to our knowledge of the names of our official plants:

As you will see, there are a number of names concerning which I have not been able to reach a decision, in some cases through lack of time, in others because this country does not afford the facilities required. I am still at work on these knotty points, and hope ultimately to settle all of them, and I earnestly solicit the advice and assistance of the members in every case where such can be rendered.

The several questions raised are as follows:

1. To what genus does the plant belong?

2. What species of the genus is it?

3. What are the proper names of this genus and this species?

4. How shall we cite the author or authors?

It is quite true that there is no official and authoritative reply to the first question. Each botanist is at liberty to unite several related genera, to hold them separate, or to make each of them into several others. Botanical science has not yet reached the point of possessing an authoritative council which shall pronounce upon such questions. So we are obliged to choose among the classifications presented. At present we have but one such modern classification which applies to our work, namely, the Genera Plantarum of Bentham and Hooker. Another, and probably more rational one, is in progress of preparation by Messrs. Engler & Prantl, and another by Baillon, but neither is yet completed. If our plants were all American, I should say, follow that American author whom we suppose to know most about American plants. But as we draw from the universal flora, so we must follow an author in the universal field, and Bentham and Hooker constitute our only one.

Question number two is even more difficult to answer. The differences of opinion among different botanists as to uniting several species are too great for us to indulge a hope of seeing an agreement. The decision of this point must therefore rest largely with ourselves, judging from our own knowledge of the plants and the weight of authority. Unfortunately we are not in a position in this country, in many cases, to form a judgment, as we are sadly deficient in collections of specimens of foreign medicinal plants. We must, to a great extent, follow European authorities regarding species limits.