TO CORRESPONDENTS. MR. COLEMAN is informed, that the Third Edition of Professor Faraday's work on Chemical Manipulation is in course of publication, by Mr. Murray, Albemarle Street. "A MEMBER ON A TRIP" is informed, that the work to which he alludes is not ready for the press. The author has promised to give us due notice of its publication. “AN ASSOCIATE” (Leamington).—There is no work published for the purpose of explaining French medical phrases to Englishmen. "AN ASSOCIATE" (Taunton).-We recommend Brande's Manual of Chemistry, or Dr. Turner's Elements. They are both voluminous, and embrace the whole subject. There are several small works, but they are of necessity incomplete; and having been published a considerable time, do not contain the most recent discoveries in the science. H. TAYLOR.-De Vallenger' Solution of Arsenic is prepared at Apothecaries' Hall. The formula is a secret. It is sent out labelled "Solution Solvent Mineral." We are not aware whether this is intended for Latin or English nor have we been able to obtain any information concerning the use of the medicine. C. G. suggests that specimens of medicinal plants in season should be exhibited in the fresh state at the house of the Society, for the benefit of Members and Associates, who seldom see these articles except prepared.- As the Museum progresses we hope this will be adopted. The Pupils in the Botanical Class have an opportunity of seeing many of these plants at the Lectures. T. C.-We believe that rectified spirits of wine is only sold retail, in a state of purity, by Chemists. B. A.-Sulphate of Soda of commerce is generally contaminated with ammonia, which is liberated on mixing it with a caustic or carbonated fixed alkali. - The smell of ammonia is of course a proof of the impurity of the salt. F. F. has forgotten the water of crystallization. "AN ASSOCIATE" (London, July 7) is referred to No. XI., page 610, line 26. R. N., A.P.S., is referred to No. XII., page 649, line 38. Another "AssOCIATE" (London, June 25) is reminded of the necessity of Chemical Knowledge in a brewer. Another "AssOCIATE" is referred to No. XI., page 610, line 55. We have no reason to alter the opinion there expressed. The Council have decided that Chemists in business on their own account cannot be admitted as Associates. In consequence of the necessity of completing each number of this Journal several days before the close of the month, in order to give time for dispatching the country parcels, communications, containing enquiries, should be sent on or before the 20th, otherwise we cannot ensure the appearance of the replies in the ensuing number. Advertisements to be addressed to Mr. CHURCHILL, Princes Street, Soho. Other Communications to THE EDITOR, 338, Oxford Street. PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. VOL. II.-No. VI.-DECEMBER 1st, 1842. PHARMACEUTICAL NOMENCLATURE. THE practice of designating substances according to their known or supposed constitution, is now generally adopted by scientific Chemists, and this system possesses the advantage of presenting to the mind a more definite idea of the nature of various bodies, than could be conveyed by an arbitrary nomenclature. The discoveries which are almost daily progressing, give rise of necessity to continual changes in the terms employed, and in some cases occasion a degree of confusion which is perplexing to the student. This, however, is of secondary importance to those who study the subject merely as a science, since an intimate acquaintance with all these details is absolutely necessary to those who prosecute such researches, and consequently, the use of the new names tends rather to assist the memory, by associating with each substance the facts with which the mind is already supposed to be familiar. But in Pharmacy the case is altogether different. The object of this pursuit is the adaptation of chemical science to the alleviation or cure of disease, and other considerations present themselves which preclude the possibility of a rigid adherence to the progressive changes alluded to, without endangering life. An error on the part of the philosopher may occasion the failure of his experiment, but the substitution of one substance for another by the Pharmaceutical Chemist may produce much more serious consequences. For this reason, although an ambiguity of terms, during the transition from one system to another, may be tolerated in the one case, absolute perspicuity should be the primary consideration in the other. The author of a work on Chemistry would sacrifice his reputation by adopting terms founded on exploded theories, and it has been urged that the authors of a Pharmacopoeia should keep pace with the progress of science. But it must be recollected that the Pharmacopoeia is not professedly a treatise on Chemistry, but a medium of communication between the prescriber and the dispenser of medicine in cases, therefore, in which the adoption of modern theories is likely to create ambiguity, the primary object of the work should not be overlooked in the vain endeavour to realize an Utopian system of perfection, which, even if attained, could have but an ephemeral existence. The Pharmacopoeia being a code of laws promulgated by one class of persons for the guidance of another class, with whom the former have little, if any, personal intercourse, it is evident, that whenever a revolution in chemical theories takes place, unless both parties act upon it simultaneously, much inconvenience and, in some cases, danger must inevitably result, especially where old terms are retained with new significations. Within the last thirty years, the theories relating to some of our most important remedies, have undergone more than one entire subversion, and the nomenclature of the Pharmacopoeia of 1836, is already in some particulars at variance with the state of chemical science in 1842. Medical men are too much occupied with their own responsible duties to devote much time to the study of Chemistry, and thus to become familiar with every discovery immediately on its development; and in our own experience we can testify, that each successive edition of the Pharmacopoeia is not universally adopted by the profession by the time a new one appears. This circumstance should always be taken into consideration, and it should also be a rule in the selection of terms to adopt such as are sufficiently dissimilar from each other, so that the life of a patient, or the accuracy of a prescription, may not be dependent on the omission or insertion of a single letter. Those who are in the habit of reading prescriptions are well aware of the liabilities to error from the accidental resemblance of words, as they appear when written with the contractions usually employed. The following are a few instances in which the resemblance of the words placed opposite to each other in the first and second columns, sometimes occasions a doubt as to which substance was intended, which could not exist if the articles in column 2 were designated as in column 3. The liability to mistake is not so evident when the words are in print; but when written in haste or with a bad pen, it is sufficiently obvious. In citing these cases, our object is merely to illustrate a principle, not to advocate any particular terms; and the remarks which we have made on the subject are founded on experience and observation. When recent chemical discoveries have demonstrated the inaccuracy of any terms employed in Pharmacy, it would be better to retain the nomenclature which is generally understood, and insert a list of synonymes in a note, than to create confusion and endanger life by an adherence to the most modern system. In the practical operations of Pharmacy, the most important consideration is the administration of the right substance, not the adoption of the most scientific name, and for this reason the names employed should rather have reference to the known and obvious characters of the substances than to their supposed constitution. Dr. Pereira* observes, on this subject, "The Latin nomenclature of the articles of the Materia Medica is of two kinds, classical and scientific. Scientific names represent opinions rather than facts, and hence require to be altered according to the fashion of the day.". "We have only to look at the writings of some of the ablest chemical philosophers of the present day, to see the germs of still greater and more important changes in nomenclature than any that have yet been made." Dr. Paris+ expresses a similar opinion, which is as follows:"I am disposed to consider it a matter of regret that the names of our medicinal compounds should have any relation to their chemical composition; for in the present unsettled state of this science, such a language must necessarily convey theory instead of truth, and opinions rather than facts." After enumerating a few instances of recent changes incidental upon the progress of science, Dr. Paris observes, "It is far from my intention to question the propriety of these changes, I only maintain that, amidst such chemical doubts, the Pharmaceutist is the last person who should become arbiter; let him await the issue in unobtrusive silence, and take care that the language of Pharmacy partakes of the same neutrality.” This opinion of Dr. Paris was published in the year 1825; but in the preface to the Pharmacopoeia of 1836, we find the following observation: "In the present day it is scarcely necessary to discuss the change of names: for although all admit that it ought not to be done inconsiderately, yet it was to be feared, lest the avoidance of the error, likely to arise from the change, would lead to a greater one. We are persuaded that the name which the most eminent professors of the science have bestowed upon a substance will eventually be the most certain and permanent. We have, therefore, determined * Selecta e Prescriptis. P. 76. + Pharmacologia. Sixth edition. P. 73. to follow in their footsteps, and put up for a short time with inconvenience, if any should arise, or learn to speak barbarously, rather than incur the danger of becoming obscure from employing a doubtful or ill-defined expression." In the royal proclamation, by which the observance of the Pharmacopoeia is enforced on all Apothecaries and compounders of medicine, it is premised, that the said book "will contribute to the public good of his Majesty's subjects, by preventing all deceipts, differences, and uncertainties in making or compounding medicines...... wherein the lives and health of his Majesty's subjects are so highly concerned," &c. These quotations, coming from the highest authority, amply confirm the position with which we set out, namely, that in pharmaceutical nomenclature, absolute perspicuity is the primary consideration. Since all parties concur in this opinion, it is to be regretted that the means adopted for the attainment of this end are calculated, as experience has shown, to lead to an opposite result. A few instances will be sufficient to prove that this assertion is correct. The following are the synonymes of CALOMEL. Aquilla Alba. P. L. 1720, Calomelas 1745, Mercurius dulcis sub limatus . 1787, Hydrargyrus muriatus mitis. 1815, Hydrargyri submurias 1836, Hydrargyri chloridum. AND CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE. Ditto Hydrargyrus muriatus Hydrargyri oxymurias In this instance the syllable "bi-" now constitutes the only distinction between these two substances; one of which is a deadly poison, when administered to the extent of a grain or two; the other is a medicine hourly in use, and frequently prescribed in doses of four or five grains. The distinction between hydrargyri submurias and hydrargyri oxymurias (of 1815) was more definite, but the theory on which this nomenclature was founded is incorrect, for which reason the names were changed. How far this change has had the desired effect will be seen by reference to recent works on Chemistry. Dr. Kane and Dr. Thomson, of Glasgow, among the salts of mercury, describe "chloride of mercury" as "corrosive sublimate, Hg. Cl;" "sub-chloride of mercury" as "calomel, Hg2 CI." Professor Graham also adopts this nomenclature, which is founded on the presumption, that the equivalent number of mer ८ 1 |