285 
U. S. P-, time longer. — Ber. d. pharm. Gesellsch., Berl., 1906, v. 16, 
p. 336. 
Cormimboeuf and Grosman suggest a slight modification of the 
Ph. Germ, method of determining metallic iron in reduced iron. 
One gm. reduced iron is treated with 25 cc. double normal iodine 
solution; leave in contact for six hours, shaking occasionally; make 
up to 250 or 300 cc. with water and titrate the excess of iodine with 
double normal hyposulphite of soda. — Repert. cle Pharm. Par., 1906, 
v. 18, pp. 446-448. 
The Ph. Brit. Committee of Reference in Pharmacy says that of 
the U. S. P. limits of 1 in 100,000 for arsenic and 90 per cent for me- 
tallic iron for reduced iron, the latter is too stringent. — Chem. & 
Drug., Bond., 1906, v. 69, p. 863. 
Smith. Kline & French Co., report on the examination of 3 samples 
of reduced iron which contained 83 per cent, 85.5 per cent, and 90 
per cent of iron in the metallic state when assayed according to the 
U.S. P. 1900 method. — Lab. Rep., S. Iv. <& F., 1906, p. IT. 
Hill, Earl, examined seven samples; all showed the presence of 
sulphides and the following percentages of iron: 52.5, 92.4, 79.8, 92.6, 
86.2, 80.0, 92.1. — Proc. Kansas Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 36. 
Caspari, Chas. E., reports eight samples examined; two contained 
excess of sulphide, one excess of oxide. — Proc. Missouri Pharm. Ass., 
1906. p. 99. 
Baird, J. W., reports 18 samples examined in 1901, 9 adulterated. — 
Proc. Massachusetts Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 59. 
Evans Sons Lescher and Webb assert that they have recently been 
able to j:>ass every sample of ferrum reductmn as being below 60 parts 
of arsenic per million. The metallic iron ranged from 87 to 90 per 
cent, with one exception, which was as low as 80 per cent. — Analytical 
Notes for 1906, 1907, p. 19. 
* FLUIDEXTRACTA. 
Searby.AA. M., thinks the fluid extracts could have been got to- 
gether very easily by adopting a heading for the several series of 
preparations, as in some of the earlier pharmacopoeias, and that this 
would have been far more preferable to the coining of such a peculiar 
word as “ fhiiclextractum." — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, p. 212. 
An editorial note points out that the writing of fluidextractum 
and fluidextract as one word has disturbed the minds of some of the 
good Latin scholars of England and ruffled the tempers of the com- 
positors and proof readers in more than one printing office. The sepa- 
ration of fluid extracts and extracts in works of reference where the 
preparations are listed alphabetically is an advantage to the volumes 
as works of reference which more than offsets all that our English 
