APPENDIX. 103 
latter kindly given me by my instructor, Professor Fliickiger, here 
at the laboratory. Both samples were finely powdered and dried at 
80° C. 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. 8. 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. AsI 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—accurate balances are not 
arranged for weighing liquids, and inaccurate balances (or 
to term them) certainly make the weighing less accurate than 
measuring; and thirdly—weighing, even on accurate balances, is 
seldom, if ever, more accurate 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 
required of a method of analysis, I can see noreason why the present 
officinal 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 experiment with the U. S. P. method was undoubtedly the 
whitest and purest of all the crystals obtained by any method, 
There was less washing necessary than in either Squibb’s or 
Flickiger’s method, and at the same time the filters and crystals 
upon them were beyond any anaes of a doubt the purest and 
whitest. Here follow the figures: 
Merck Opium. Gehe Opium. 
Fliickiger ... icei ses ie ee 13°95 p. ¢. 
Squibb “ see cA pis 16°52 p. ¢. 
U. 8.2. vie ar <a SMA: 15°00 p. c. 
As these figures shew, Fliickiger’s method gave the lowest and 
Squibb’s the highest 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, 
