35 
nates the roots, the seed, the corm as singular, while the leaves alone 
are plural.) — Ber. d. pharm. Gesellsch. Berl., 1906, v. 16, pp. 147-175. 
Rudorf, G., comments on the differences in nomenclature in the 
price lists of three well-known firms and in the Ph. Brit., Ph. Fr., 
Ph. Germ. IV, and Ph. Hisp. VII, giving a table of quinine salts 
and their titles in each. He concludes: 
An international pharmaceutical conference, at which a uniform system of 
Latin terms could be decided upon, is certainly much to be desired. These 
should be the same for all countries, or, at any rate, so little different that any 
one can at once recognize a name when he sees it, of whatever nationality the 
prescribe!’ may be. The ordinary name of a chemical in a country where it is 
used is, of course, immaterial to the issue ; but even then it should be uniform 
in its own particular country, and for that purpose the pharmacopoeia should 
be the standard. It is therefore essential that this reference book should be 
scientifically and logically correct, and from these points of view the Ph. Brit, 
wants a lot of correcting, too. — Chem. & Drug., Lond., 1906, v. 68, p. 174. 
In the Pharmacopoeia of Japan the registered names of patented 
medicines are changed to their chemical names and a comparative 
table of the official and the ordinary popular names of medicines is 
added. 
“ Gnomon ” points out that medicines and pharn acy are being 
threatened with an overwhelming flood of fancy names, and calls 
attention to the possibility of a number of names being applied to a 
single article made by one manufacturer but sold by different 
people. — Pharm. J., Lond., 1906, v. 22, p. 55. 
Hill, Charles A., presents observations on the inaccuracy of trade 
names in connection with drugs and medicinal preparations generally. 
He recounts a number of geographical misnomers, botanical and phar- 
maceutical misnomers, trade misnomers, and chemical misnomers. — 
Ibid., v. 22, pp. 346-347. 
Pharm. J., 1906, v. 23, p. 158, gives a list of synonyms and defini- 
tions, collected since the publication of the Chemist’s Annual, 1906. 
3. COST AND SIZE. 
Leffman, Henry, registers a strong protest against the cost and 
size of the book and the delay in its issue, the growing tendency to 
make it a reference work, the misleading date, the monkish Latin 
and the unnecessary genitive construction of many common names, 
the lack of comprehensiveness, precision, and conciseness. He con- 
siders it much too elaborate in some ways and insufficient in others. 
It is limited to but one school of medicine. Its literary style he con- 
siders much too turgid and prolix. The analytical notes and com- 
ments should be more concise and simple, avoiding iteration and 
multiplication of terms. He deplores the elementary instruction as 
to test solutions', the infrequency of publication, and the complicated 
il 
