SUGGESTIONS FOR THE BRITISH PIIARMACOPffilA. 
381 
lost, if it did not stand part of it, induced the Commons to yield an unwilling 
consent, and that the late Premier, Mr. Gladstone, Sir George Grey, and 
others, fought against it to the very last division. It seems hardly likely, 
therefore, that the present Government will bring in a Bill to do for the many 
what they refused to do for the few, and the fairest hope for securing this 
boon must still remain—an entrance through the doors of the practical exami¬ 
nation of the Pharmaceutical Society, Opifex. 
REMARKS ON THE NOMENCLATURE AND SOME. PREPARA- 
TIONS OF THE BRITISH PHARMACOPOEIA. 
TO THE EDITORS OE THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Dear Sir,—Though I have every confidence in the gentlemen entrusted with 
the revision of the British Pharmacopoeia, yet, as remarks have been made, and 
Professor Redwood seems to court inquiry, I venture to send you a few thoughts 
that have occurred to me in reading and thinking of the subject, which are at 
your service, should you think them worthy of a place in your Journal. 
The application of the term hydrarg. cldor., formerly applied to calomel, to 
corrosive sublimate, is very much to be regretted. A few months after the pub¬ 
lication of the B. P. a prescription was given to me to prepare, which ran as 
follows : — 
R Hydrarg. Cldorid. gr. iv. 
Sacchar. Alb. q. s. Misce bene ct div. in pulv. viij. Signa, the Powders. 
There could be no doubt which preparation of mercury was intended, but, on 
inquiry, I ascertained the powders were for a very young infant, and to be 
given at short intervals. Had they been dispensed according to the B. P., seri¬ 
ous consequences would undoubtedly have occurred. The application of the 
term calomel has its enemies; though unobjectionable as regards theory, yet it 
might thwart the intention of the prescriber, as nervous patients might refuse to 
take a compound where they saw it plainly written. Either hydrarg. chlorid. 
mitis or hydrarg. protochlorid. applied to calomel, and hydrarg. bichlorid. or 
hydrarg. perchlorid. to corrosive sublimate, would be sufficiently significant. 
Another subject of regret is the introduction of acid, nitric. 1*500, in lieu of 
1*42. It was iu the P. L., but the strength reduced in consequence of the re¬ 
presentation of the disadvantage of employing so strong an acid by our revered 
friend Mr. Bell. A most respectable London house refused to supply me with 
this acid, on account of its dangerous character. The weaker acid answers very 
well for every practical purpose. 
The infusum gentian® is a different article to what we have been accustomed 
to know by that name. With a little additional spirit or a little aromatic tinc¬ 
ture it might be named vin. gentian® comp. 
In the B. P. we have liquors, solutions, and volumetric solutions, which 
might be much more safely classed together with some of the formulae of the 
former Pharmacopoeias, llow readily might the inexperienced substitute the 
solution of corrosive sublimate of the B. P. (forty times as strong) for the liq. 
hydrarg. bichlor., P. L. ! This confusion and tendency to mistake might be 
obviated by careful nomenclature, carried out in a uniform manner, with the 
doses attached to such as were intended for internal use,—additions which would 
not materially increase the size, but to a great extent the value of the work. 
For instance, we might have— 
