ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE PHARMACOPEIA. 
101 
than in tlie perpetual honey or jelly ; pills and electuaries may be readily swal¬ 
lowed without taste folded in slightly moistened wafer-paper; and nearly all 
the preparations of senna are now more or less improved. 
In producing the preparations contained in a Pharmacopoeia, without advo¬ 
cating anything which might interfere with the quality, it would be desirable 
to see consistent economy and directions ; for instance, speaking of economy, in 
the new liniments of belladonna and aconite, I would not sanction the waste of 
spirit left in the marc, I would either press it out or displace it, and the pro¬ 
duct would probably be found equal to that first percolated. 
I would just add a hint about directions. I would avoid such as that given 
for tinct. guaiaci ammon., where, after maceration and filtration with the 
quantity of sp. ammon. aromat. sufficient sp. a. a. is to be added to make up the 
original quantity of fluid, experience telling me, at the same time, that there is 
no loss of bulk ; on the contrary, in making four pints of the tincture the bulk 
is increased to the extent of five or six ounces. Again, in preparing the wines, 
if wine of colchicum and wine of opium are to be made up to a certain fluid 
quantity, why not also ipecacuanha w T ine ? 
Many similar oversights might be touched upon, but these will be sufficient 
to draw the attention of the Editors to those minor points which are neverthe¬ 
less important in a standard work which treats of the means of health, and in 
the next edition will, I doubt not, have the attention merited. As a stimulus 
to others, I will finish with a line from an old acquaintance:— 
“ Now, brother, if a better system’s thine, 
Impart it freely, or make use of mine.” 
ON THE NOMENCLATUKE OE THE PHARMACOPEIA. 
BY MR. HENRY DEANE. 
On reading Professor Redwood’s essay “ On the Construction of a Pharma¬ 
copoeia,” while agreeing wdth him in almost every line of his valuable observa¬ 
tions, I was particularly struck with the appropriateness of his remarks on 
nomenclature. When a youth, and learning the elements of my business, the 
prefixes sub, pro , and per, were common terms of chemical expression in con¬ 
stant use, and employed in the Pharmacopoeia of 1824, and that valuable text¬ 
book, Thomson’s Dispensatory. They were perfectly well understood, definite 
enough, and expressive. But in the succeeding Pharmacopoeias, when other 
terms attempting to give expression to the chemical constitution of substances 
employed were introduced, it was foreseen by every one interested in it, that 
much inconvenience and danger would arise from the change, without a corre¬ 
sponding amount of advantage. Time has fully confirmed this view of the case, 
as every one who has been concerned in the dispensing of medicines during the 
past thirty years will have experienced. From the time that the old terms above 
referred to were dropped for others, which, in the evident rapid progress of che¬ 
mical knowledge, could not be permanent, I have had but one constant feeling 
of regret, that what might very properly be considered terms of fact and of 
universal application should be dropped for those of theory, and which might 
possibly have a different signification in other parts of the world. 
One very great difficulty arising out of these radical changes is that when 
medical men have grown up in the use of any terms whatever, learned under 
some particular system, it is not a very easy thing for them to get new ones 
constructed on more modern notions into their heads, seeing that in all proba¬ 
bility the chemical knowledge they possessed on passing their examinations, has 
gone clean from them, except what little is required to steer them clear of 
