32 Mr. Phillips's Reply to Dr. Hope. [July, 



I prefer the process of the London College ; for although, as I 

 have before acknowledged, it is in point of strength of less value 

 than yours in the proportion of 10 to 16; yet there is so much 

 less risk in heating a fluid in a retort than solids that I would 

 much rather engage to prepare a given quantity of ammonia in 

 solution by the London than by the Edinburgh process ; added 

 to which, the mixingjof the ingredients in the manner directed 

 in the latter is an extremely unpleasant operation, and totally 

 unfit for the preparation of large quantities of the solution. 



Tartras Antimonii.— In reply to my remarks on this prepara- 

 tion, you say, " the name given to this substance naturally first 

 excites your animadversion. Had you happened to look at the 

 preface to the Pharmacopoeia, you would have found the reasons 

 assio'ned by the College for deviating occasionally from that 

 nomenclature, and abbreviating the name of some compound 

 substances, for the sake of convenience in prescription, by 

 restricting it to that of the active ingredient. The tartras anti- 

 monii is one example." Now I will admit that it is highly 

 advantageous to shorten the name of preparations ; but in doing 

 this, it would, I think, be better to give an arbitrary name than 

 one which conveys an incorrect idea of the nature of the sub- 

 stance. Antimonium tarlarizatum, for example, is an appella- 

 tion which conveys no false idea of the nature of emetic tartar ; 

 but, I think, as potash is one of its ingredients, that tartrate of 

 antimony does give an incorrect representation of this substance. 

 I will, however, admit for a moment, that tartrate of antimony is 

 a proper appellation ; why then is not tartarized iron subjected 

 to the same rule ? This compound is correctly called tartras 

 potasses etferri, which is only four letters shorter than the name 

 of tartras potasses et antimonii. But there is another preparation 

 of this same metal to which your rule would have been more 

 applicable than to emetic tartar; — I mean oxidum antimo- 

 nii cum phosphate calcis. If the name of potash may be 

 omitted from tartras potasscc et antimonii because it is not the 

 u active ingredient," surely the same law might, a fortiori, have 

 been applied to the oxidum antimonii cum phosphate calcis : omit- 

 ting the name of the bone-earth, and calling it oxidum antimonii 

 would have been consistently " restricting it to that of the 

 active ingredient." 



With respect to the different methods of preparing tartarised 

 antimony, you inform me, that with the aid of Dr. Duncan, jun. 

 Professor of the Institutes of Medicine, all the processes lately 

 recommended by the Colleges of London and Dublin, and by 

 me, were carefully tried ; and you saw no reason for preferring 

 any of them to the one in your former editions. I confess I 

 wish you had gone rather further in your remarks, and had 

 shown the grounds upon which you prefer the process to which 

 I have objected. As, however - , you have not done this, I shall 

 venture to mention my reasons for thinking that the process 



