THE NOMENCLATURE OF A PHARMACOPOEIA. 



443 



Edinburgh. 

 Pharmaco- 

 poeia, 1817. 



while in others it is necessary, in order to avoid confusion, or to 

 comply with pharmaceutical usage. In the London Pharma- 

 coposia of 1836 brevity was carried to its utmost limit, the old 

 pharmaceutical names employed in previous editions being often 

 so shorn as to render them neither elegant nor explicit. Thus, 

 cajeput oil was termed simply Cajuputi; gum arabic, Acacia; 

 poppy heads, Papaver ; pomegranate peel, Granatum ; while 

 Quercus, which the dictionary tells us signifies an oak, was held 

 to mean oak bark. 



In amusing contrast with this excessive condensation, are the 

 terms employed in the Edinburgh Pharmacopoeia of 1817, the 

 authors of which seem to have been impressed with the necessity 

 of each name containing the whole truth, no matter how incon- 

 venient it might be to write it. Hence we find cajeput oil 

 under the name of Mclaleucce Leucadendri Oleum volatile ; oil of 

 cloves under that of Eugenice Caryophyllatce, Oleum volatile; 

 mace is called Myristicce Moschatce Involucrum nuclei, and 

 cascarilla, Crotonis Eleutherice Cortex. 



In the British Pharmacopoeia, extremes such as these have to Nomencla- 

 a large extent been avoided ; but it is still obvious that some ture fer re d Pr6 

 greater regard to the usage of pharmacists would impart a 

 practical character to the work. I would not propose to return 

 to the old rule of designating in every case the part of the plant 

 of which each drug consists, for terms such as benzoin, assafcetida, 

 or cubebs are in themselves perfectly explicit. But it would be 

 preferable to say Belladonce folia, instead of simply Belladona, 

 especially as we have also Belladonce radix. Arnicas radix is 

 more definite than simply Arnica; filix mas than filix ; 

 Quercus cortex than Quercus ; Cassicv pulpa, than Cassia ; 

 Acacim gummi than Acacia; Colocynthydis pulpa, than 

 ColocyntJiis, &c. Some of the names are also open to exception 

 in other ways : why should Ipecacuan be substituted for the 

 more euphonious Ipecacuanha, when the latter is the true 

 Brazilian name and is used by the best writers, as well as 

 universally in commerce? Can a good reason be given for 

 changing Guaiacum to Guaiac? the old term Matico might 

 also be restored, for it forms as good a Latin noun as Bucco, and 



