34 
present nomenclature should be changed to that- of the A. A. A. S. — 
Proc. Am. Pliarm. Ass.. 1906. v. 54. p. 450. 
TVulff. C., points out that in the nomenclature of chemical sub- 
stances there is considerable variation in the several pharmacopoeias 
In the U. S. P.. as in the Ph. Austr., the base is given as the substan- 
tive. while the acid is the adjective. In other pharmacopoeias, on 
the other hand, this is reversed, and the base is given in adjective or 
genitive form. And while the difference in nomenclature per se 
mav be considered trifling, it does not materiallv interfere with a com- 
parative study of the several pharmacopoeias, and is generally mis- 
leading. — Ber. d. pharm. Gesellsch. Berl., 1906, v. 16, p. 159. 
Ephraim. Julius, discusses the trade-mark for pharmaceutical prod-,, 
ucts, the factors that are of importance in popularizing a proprietary 
name, and some of the regulations in various countries regarding 
trade-marks. — Ztschr. f. ang. Chem. Berl., 1906, v. 19, pp. 515-516. 
A book review points out that, in the Xational Formulary, an at- 
tempt has been made to provide suitable short names for the prepara- 
tions, but it was only an attempt. The name mistura chlorali et 
potassii bromidi composita remains the same, but its English equiva- 
lent, compound mixture of chloral and potassium bromide, has been 
cut to chloral and bromide compound, which is put in quotation 
marks, as if it were really not meant. If some short, euphonious, and 
fairly descriptive word were coined to designate this mixture, doctors 
would be more apt to prescribe it. And. of course, the same state- 
ment holds good as to many others. — Drug. Circ. & Chem. Gaz. X. Y., 
1906, v. 50. p. 303. 
An editorial says: 
Selecting a name for a new medicine or a new name for an old one is not so 
easy as it may seem, especially when we consider that the appellation should 
be original, short, euphonious, descriptive, easy to remember, and not hard to 
write or pronounce. — Ibid., v. 50. p. 281. 
TTulff, C.. points out that the principal title in the Ph. Svec., Xdl., 
Austr.. and U. S. is in Latin, while in the Ph. Ital. and the Ph. Hisp. 
it is in the vernacular. The Ph. Austr. and the U. S. P. have dis- 
continued the use of synonyms. He calls attention to the fact that the 
nomenclature of the several pharmacopoeias differs widely, and it is 
unfortunate that the provisions of the Brussels Conference were not 
extended so as to provide for greater uniformity in this respect. 
The provisions so far adopted have been complied with in several 
instances, and it is to be hoped that there will be a gradual approach 
to international uniformity. He also prefers the use of folium to 
folia and of tuber in place of tubers in connection with the nomen- 
clature of crude drugs. He points out that the singular permits of 
presenting a better collective description and would tend to greater 
uniformity in the pharmacopoeia itself. (The U. S. P. Till desig- 
