33 
Holzhauer suggests that instead of writing out the full name they 
abbreviate it to acetphen. — Ibid., p. 102. 
Pa} r ne, George F., a member of the Revision Committee, referring 
to the unfamiliar names of a number of additions to the pharma- 
copoeia, gives a list of titles probably more familiar to many by the 
names of similar articles given opposite them. Among these we find : 
“Acetphenetidin, phenacetine ; ethyl carbonate [ Sic ], urethane; benzo- 
sulphinide, saccharin, guarantose; gambir, catechu; sabal, pal- 
metto berries.*’ — Proc. Georgia Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 73. 
Remington, Joseph P., points out that the subcommittee on nomen- 
clature had entire charge of the names of official articles. In gen- 
eral the object sought was to secure an official name that is descriptive 
and derived from the correct chemical name. — Am. Druggist, N. Y., 
1906, v. 49, p. 81. 
Arny, H. V., thinks that the conversion of the familiar names, 
arsenous acid and chromic acid, into arsenic trioxide and chromium 
trioxide, respectively, while scarcely destined to become popular in 
prescription writing, is a step toward correct nomenclature. Xot 
so, however, with the substitution of the clumsy titles sodium hydrox- 
ide, potassium hydroxide, calcium oxide, and magnesium oxide for 
the simpler and equally distinctive terms soda, potassa, lime, and 
magnesia, employed by former pharmacopoeias. * * * Xor does 
the change of the simple spiritus glonoini into the cumbersome spir- 
itus glycerilis nitratis seem very happv. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 
1906, v. 78, p. 11. 
Leffman, Henry, commends the reform made in the use of hydro- 
chloride instead of hydrochlorate, for alkaloidal salts, and the resto- 
ration of the proper spelling of naphthol and naphthalene; but de- 
plores the useless final “ e ” in halogen salts and names of alkaloids. 
He regrets that methyl and kaolin were not made indeclinable and 
that the whole genitive construction of binary compounds was sent 
by the board. Liquor potassii hydroxidi is no gain in applied phar- 
macy, nor is it consistent with liquor calcis. In the change from 
acidum arsenosum to arseni trioxidum a step has been made from 
one bad form to another. To call the common white arsenic the tri- 
oxide when it is a sesquioxide is to add confusion to chemical nomen- 
clature. The older name was objectionable, but the new one is as 
much so. If ferri hydroxidum is acceptable, why should not arseni 
sesquioxidum be equally so? Even the noncommittal arseni oxiclum, 
following the style of arseni iodidum, would have been better than 
the given name. — Ibid., v. 78, p. 80. 
Hallberg, C. S. N., asserts that the nomenclature of chemical com- 
pounds should be thoroughly thrashed out before the Pharmacopoeial 
Convention meets, so that we can determine definitely whether the 
11667— Bull. 58—09 3 
