ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE PHARMACOPOEIA. 
97 
tnical names or symbols that are liable from time to time to be altered as 
new views in chemical science prevail. Frequent change in the names ap¬ 
plied to medicines is in itself an evil. The most important objects to be 
attained are, that the names shall be familiar, concise, and explicit, easily 
pronounced and used both in English and Latin, consistent one with an¬ 
other, and not inconsistent in their signification with those used for other 
purposes. Names already in use, if they fulfil these conditions, are pre¬ 
ferable to new names.” 
It happens unfortunately that many names which are both familiar and con¬ 
cise, are not accordant with modern knowledge, and hence has arisen the feeling 
that alteration is necessary. The teacher who imparts botanical knowledge, 
shudders to hear Squill spoken of as “ Radix Scillse,” or Caraways as “ Semina 
Carui,” when he is using his utmost endeavours to explain that bulbs are not 
roots , and that the so-called seeds of umbelliferous plants are in reality fruits. 
Yet terms such as these are in constant use among druggists, and are sanctioned 
by all the older writers on Materia Medica. The more exact definitions how¬ 
ever, having already existed many years in the Pharmacopoeia, it would, in most 
cases, be a retrograde movement to discard them in favour of the older and more 
popular designations. Let us then accept the bulbs of Squill, the corms of Col- 
chicum and the fruits of Umbellifers, as a token that pharmaceutists do not 
ignore botany. 
In many cases however the designation of the special part of the plant which 
is to be used, is neither customary nor necessary, while in others it is necessary 
in order to avoid confusion, or to comply with pharmaceutical usage. In the 
London Pharmacopoeia of 1836, brevity was carried to its utmost limit, the old 
pharmaceutical names employed in previous editions being often so shorn, as to 
render them neither elegant nor explicit. Thus, Cajuput Oil was termed simply 
Cajuputi ; Gum arabic, Acacia; Poppy heads, Papaver ; Pomegranate peel, 
Granatum; —while Quercus , which the dictionary tells us signifies an oak , was 
held to mean Oak Bark. 
In amusing contrast with this excessive condensation, are the terms employed 
in the Edinburgh Pharmacopoeia of 1817, the authors of which seem to have 
been impressed with the necessity of each name containing the wdtole truth, no 
matter how inconvenient it might be to write it. Hence we find Cajuput Oil 
under the name of Melaleucx Leucadendri Oleum volatile ; Oil of cloves under 
that of Eugenix Caryophyllatx Oleum volatile; Mace is called Myristicx Mos- 
chatx Involucrum nuclei , and Casearilla, Grotonis Eleuiherix Cortex. 
In the British Pharmacopoeia, extremes such as these have to a large extent 
been avoided; but it is still obvious that some greater regard to the usage of 
pharmaceutists, would impart a practical character to the work. I would not 
propose to return to the old rule of designating in every case the part of the 
plant of which each drug consists, for terms such as Benzoin, Assafoetida, or 
Cubebs are in themselves perfectly explicit. But it would be preferable to say 
Belladonnx Folia instead of simply Belladonna , especially as we have also Bel- 
ladonnx Radix. Arnicx Radix is more definite than simply Arnica; Filix Mas 
than Filix; Quercus Cortex than Quercus; Cassix Pulpa than Cassia; Acacice 
Gummi than Acacia ; Colocyntliidis Pulpa than Colocynthis , etc. Some of the 
names are also open to exception in other ways:—why should “ Ipecacuan " be 
substituted for the more euphonious Ipecacuanha , when the latter is the true 
Brazilian name and is used by the best writers, as well as universally in com¬ 
merce ? Can a good reason be given for changing Guaiacum to Guaiac ? the 
old term Matico might also be restored, for it forms as good a Latin noun as 
Bucco , and is in accordance with its derivation,* which the feminine “ Matico 1 ' 1 
* Matico is the diminutive of Mateo, the Spanish for Matthew, that having been the name 
of the soldier to whom tradition ascribes the discovery of the styptic property of the drug. 
