32 
Searby, W. M., thinks it is doubtful whether any considerable use 
will be made of the sesquipedalian names [hexamethylenamina, etc.]. 
Either shorter names must be invented or we shall have to wait until 
the patents on these names have expired. In the case of those which 
have been simply trade-marked, it is almost impossible to tell whether 
these will ever expire. There seems to be no limit to the duration of 
the trade-mark. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, p. 208. 
Eliel, Leo, discussing the use of chemical terms for the newly 
admitted synthetics, asserts that with the expiration of the patents 
the names by which they were introduced become public property and 
there is much comment why these names were not used. It is time 
that those responsible for this action make explanation. The 
chemical names will not be used by the profession. What explanation 
can be given for use of common names of Phenyldimethvlpyrazolon, 
which was also a patented product ; or of Phenylis Salicylas, which 
was in the same class ? — Proc. Indiana Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 69. 
Stevens, A. B., remarks that doubtless the greatest fault found 
with the committee has been upon its failure to include the popular 
names for synthetics. He thinks the Druggists Circular has made 
a very serious charge in suggesting that the manufacturers had made 
it an object to the subcommittee having synthetics in charge to keep 
the common names out of the pharmacopoeia, and says it is a ques- 
tion which bids fair to be thoroughly discussed before another revi- 
sion, when it is to be hoped it will be settled for all time. — Proc. 
Michigan Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 95. 
Stahel, A. W., thinks it unfortunate that the Committee of Revi- 
sion should have laid so much stress on chemical nomenclature in its 
adoption of some of the new synthetic compounds. From an ethical 
standpoint their version is undoubtedly correct, but from a common- 
sense point of view it seems a little strained. A coined name would 
have been more practical in many ways. The business tact of the 
proprietary concern is shown by the ingenuity with which they select 
short and catchy names for their products. — Proc. Arkansas Pharm. 
Ass., 1906, p. 64. 
Thrush, M. Clayton, considers that the Revision Committee erred 
in adopting the chemical name as the official name, as these names 
are quite long and difficult to remember. * * * He does not think 
that the medical profession favors the adoption of patent medicines 
in the pharmacopoeia. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78. p. 36. 
Beringer. White, and La Wall think it one of the most difficult 
problems to induce physicians to memorize and use some of the 
lengthy official titles for organic chemicals. 
Sayre, Edward A., asks if the physician can be expected, on short 
notice, to write acetphenetidinum for phenacetin, or liquor antisep- 
ticus for listerine, — Proc. Rew Jersey Pharm. Ass., 1906, pp. 99-100. . 
