APPENDIX. • 103 



latter kindly given me by my instructorj Professor Fluckiger, here 

 at the laboratory^ Both samples were finely powdered and dried at 

 80° 0. for five hours. All three methods were begun at the same 

 time, and the directions for each closely followed throughout. In 

 both cases the determination by the U. S. P, method was completed 

 long ere the others were, while Squibb's method, due to its more 

 frequent washing and slower filtering, took up the most time. Just at 

 this point I should like to protest against the impracticability and 

 uselessness of weighing liquids, which so often is found in methods 

 of plant analysis and nowhere else. As I see the matter, there is 

 not one point in its favor, unless, perhaps, that it is an inherited 

 custom, while there are certainly many points against it. Firstly 

 it occupies more time ; secondly — accxirate balances are not 

 arranged for weighing liquids, and inaccurate balances (or 

 moderately accurate balances, as their owners would probably prefer 

 to term them) certainly make the weighing less accurate than 

 measuring ; and thirdly — weighing, even on accurate balances, is 

 seldom, if ever, more accxirate than measuring with graduated 

 glassware, which every druggist does, or, at any rate, should possess. 

 The U. S. P. method, besides being the shorter, required less 

 attention and care than the other methods, and, as the figures will 

 shew, gave the most satisfactory results. As this is all that is 

 I'equired of a method of analysis, I can see no reason why the present 

 ofiicinal process should be altered, for no other now in use is more 

 exact and at the same time as practical. The morphine obtained in 

 every expei-imeut with the U. S. P. method was undoubtedly the 

 "vvhitest and purest of all the crystals obtained by any method. 

 There was less washinsr necessary than in either Squibb's or 



FliJckiger's method, and at the same time the filters and crystals 



^pon them were beyond any question of a doubt the purest and 

 whitest. Here follow the figures :— 



Merck Opium. Gehe Opium. 



Fluckiger 9-5-2 P- <^^ 13-95 p. c. 



Squibb 11-67 p. c. 16-52 p. c, 



U. S. P 11-41 p-c. 15-00 p. c. 



As these figm-es shew, Fliickiger's method gave the lowest and 

 Squibb's the hi -best results, which facts are, however, very easily 

 explained, and as follows: In Fliickiger^s method the result depends 

 very much, if not entirely, upon the amount of shaking that is done; 



