RELATION OF THE BRITISH PHARMA COPCEIA TO PHARMACOLOGY. 5G5 
aconitia that could be found in commerce was required to be given to another 
frog before the same effect was produced. 
Adeps Prjeparatus is ordered to be obtained from u perfectly fresh” hog’s 
fat, liquefied over a boiling-water bath, strained through fine linen, and again 
similarly heated until entirely free from water. According to Hills (Pharm. Journ. 
2nd ser. vol. i. p. 399) and Haselden (Pharm. Journ. 2nd ser. vol. v. p. 252) this 
treatment appears to be insufficient, and that to obtain pure lard it is necessary to 
wash the flare with water ; while, on the other hand, Squire (Pharm. Journ. 2nd 
ser. vol. v. p. 253) and Ince (ibid. p. 264) regard heat as alone necessary. The sub¬ 
ject obviously needs further investigation; at least, it is desirable that before the 
issue of another Pharmacopoeia, the published experience of Pharmaceutists shall 
have settled the question one way or the other. 
Ammoni.e Benzoas.—B y following the Pharmacopoeia directions for pre¬ 
paring this salt, a bibenzoate instead of a benzoate of ammonia will be obtained. 
After evaporating the solution of benzoic acid in ammonia to the crystallizing- 
point, some more ammonia should be added, and then a neutral salt is obtained. 
This method of obviating the formation of an acid salt was proposed by Fehling 
(Pharm. Journ. vol. iv. p. 184), and ought to have been included in the Pharma¬ 
copoeia process. That a bibenzoate will be formed if this precaution be not 
adopted, was long ago pointed out by Berzelius and confirmed byMaisch (Amer. 
Journ. Pharm., and Chem. News, vol. iii. p. 259). 
Antimonium Sulphuratum.—T he basis of this preparation is “ prepared ” 
sulphuret of antimony. On turning to appendix A., “prepared” sulphuret is 
found to be u tersulphuret of antimony reduced to fine powder;” it should 
therefore have been termed powdered sulphuret of antimony, the word “pre¬ 
pared ” being unnecessary, and, conventionally, wrong. One .would have ex¬ 
pected “ prepared ” sulphuret of antimony to be sulphuret of antimony from 
which its common impurity, sulphide of arsenic, had been separated. This might 
readily have been done by directing the powdered sulphuret to be digested in 
solution of ammonia for forty-eight hours,—a proceeding which Weigand tells us 
(Gmelin’s Chemistry, Eng. trails, vol. iv. p. 337) removes the sulphide of 
arsenic almost completely. It might then have been termed “prepared” sul¬ 
phuret of antimony. But the term “sulphuret” is also objectionable. In the 
old long-unused words, hydruret, nitruret, chloruret, bromuret, ioduret, etc., 
the syllable uret has been almost universally replaced by that of ide ; and in the 
Pharmacopoeia, as in other modern works, we find the synonymous and more 
euphonious words chloride, bromide, iodide, etc. Why did not the authors also 
follow the example of other modern authors in employing the word sulphide 
instead of sulphuret? Medical and Pharmaceutical students, who in these days 
have to learn so much, very naturally complain of the great loss of time involved 
in the “ getting up ” of such differences of nomenclature. 
Aquas.—I t is gratifying to find that in the new formulae for the preparation 
of waters, the compilers of the British Pharmacopoeia have recognized the im¬ 
provements suggested in the published papers of such Pharmaceutists as Beane, 
Haselden, Ince, Pereira, Phillips, Warington, and Whipple. Only in one, that 
of Aqua llosce , has any general recommendation been neglected : here fresh rose 
petals are directed to be distilled with water. Now fresh flowers can only be 
obtained at one season of the year: the consequence is, that if the water be pre¬ 
pared with fresh petals, a quantity must be distilled which will last through 
many months. Under these circumstances, the water frequently becomes sour and 
mucilaginous. Moreover, when made from flowers which have been “ pickled ” 
by the addition of three times their weight of common salt, rose water remains 
clear and fragrant for a much longer time than when made from the fresh 
flowers. All this was stated by Haselden in a paper read at a Pharmaceutical 
meeting in June, 1856, and his statement was confirmed by Beane, Gibbs, and 
