THE NEW EDITION OF THE PHARMACOPEIA. 
279 
no ready method has been published for distinguishing the pure from that con¬ 
taining 10 per cent, of oxide of methyl, prepared from methylated spirit. The 
pure ether, used in the following experiment, was Howard’s make. 
Sulphuric Ether .—Take two clean dry test tubes, put 4 fluid drachms of pure 
ether into one, and the same quantity of methylated ether into the other; place 
side by side, and add to each 10 minims of the test, mixed immediately before 
use, with 50 minims of pure rectified spirit, to render it more readily miscible 
with the ether. The pure ether will retain the pinkish hue, imparted to it by 
the test, for a considerable time; whilst that made from methylated spirit changes 
to a pale brown in a minute or so. By adding successive portions of the test, 
the same effects will be observed, as the oxide of methyl appears to possess the 
property of decolorizing a considerable quantity of the test. 
Sweet Spirit of Nitre.— Previous to applying the test to this spirit, either 
pure or methylated, I proceed in the way described by Mr. Tuck, on page 173 
of the Pharmaceutical Journal for October; best described in his own words, 
“Mix the sweet nitre with an equal bulk of solution of caustic potash, twice the 
strength of the Pharmacopoeia solution, and, after allowing the mixture to stand 
about an hour, distil off an amount of spirit equal to the quantity employed.” 
On proceeding, as in the former experiments, a most marked difference will 
be perceived, on the addition of the test, between the pure sweet nitre and the 
methylated, the former retaining, the latter soon losing its colour. 
116, Balls Pond Road , N. 
THE NEW EDITION OE THE PHARMACOPOEIA. 
TO THE EDITORS OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Gentlemen,—The President of the Pharmaceutical Conference, in his able 
address at Birmingham, states that,— u Judging from the little that is now heard 
of the subject (the British Pharmacopoeia), one can but arrive at the conclusion, 
either the new regulations laid down are widely ignored, or that chemists, 
wholesale and retail, are gradually falling in with them. I hope it is the 
latter.” I would I could hope the same. I think there has been a great amount 
of hypercriticism upon it, from which cause many medical men have never 
studied it, at least many daily betray their ignorance of it by writing P. L. on 
every prescription, whether it would be affected by it or not. Oftentimes pre¬ 
scriptions are marked P.L., when officinal formulae for some of the ingredients 
are only to be found in P.B., such as Ferri et Quinix Citras , Acidum Nitro- 
hydrochloricum dilutum (this was not officinal in any British Pharmacopoeia 
previous to P.B.), and Extractum Colocynthidis composition , which was not in 
the last P.L. Dr. Garrod’s table “ of the alterations in strength of preparations 
of sufficient importance to render them essential to be borne in mind in pre¬ 
scribing,” contains only twenty-four articles; no great bugbear this, one would 
think. Besides this, it must often lead to great disappointment in their practice, 
as frequently prescriptions containing Tinctura Aconiti or Tinctura Nucis- 
Vomicx are not marked either P.L. or P.B., although, from the tenor of the 
prescription, it may be seen that P.L. is intended; yet in such cases, where they 
are for internal administration, by erring on the side of caution, the weaker 
(P.B.) preparation is almost invariably used. Seeing that the whole work is 
undergoing revision by able editors, I hope it may not be presumptuous in me 
to offer one or two suggestions. 
Why is Tinctura Conii Fructusso called? Is it intended that the tincture of 
the leaves is to be used unless it be written as above ? If so, why have they 
not given us a formula for it? Would it not have been better to have made it 
