OXIDE V. OXYDE ; CHEMIST V. CHYMIST. 
425 
is allowed to drop, I should like to place before your readers as a good general 
excipient, one that I have adopted for many years 5 but in doing so I wish it to 
be understood that I do not vaunt its superiority over the excipients recom¬ 
mended by those gentlemen in the special cases they have brought before us, but 
for general purposes I consider it superior to those usually in vogue, such as 
mucilage, conserve of roses, bread, etc. It is composed of— 
5 ij powdered tragacanth, 
5 vj (by measure) of glycerine. 
This is mixed in a mortar and put into a covered pot; at first it is in a semi¬ 
fluid state, but in the course of a few hours becomes a firm, tenacious mass 5 it 
is then ready to be placed on the dispensing counter for use when required. ’ It 
will keep well, and but a small quantity is necessary to form a mass, and conse¬ 
quently it does not render the pills too bulky ; for instance, 24 grs. quinine sulph. 
require only 10 grs. to form a good mass ; 3 j potass, iodid. only 6 grs. easily 
rolled out. It is also well adapted for calomel, opium, and morphia pills. Since- 
reading Mr. Savage’s paper I have tried it with creasote, and find 24 minims 
creasote, 36 grs. pulv. glycyrrh. decort. with 6 grs. of the excipient, make 12 
pills of good consistence and moderate size, the creasote being all absorbed. 
Another advantage is that pills made with this excipient do not become hard, 
and at the same time keep their shape. I may as well add that I generally keep 
another pot of the same excipient at hand, only made in different proportions, 
viz. jij pulv. tragae. to *i, by measure, glycerine. This is softer than the other, 
and a small portion of it added to any refractory mass generally renders it 
manageable. Yours, etc., 
S. B. Turney. 
Plymouth, December 17th , 1869. 
OX/DE v. OXZDE ;■ CHEMIST 0 . CHZMIST. 
BY BOVERTON REDWOOD, F.C.S. 
In the last number of the ‘ Pharmaceutical Journal ’ appeared, as an extracted 
article, a statement by Dr. John Harley, which is, I believe, based upon 
conclusions somewhat too hastily drawn. Dr. Harley, who heads his remarks 
“ The Conversion of the Greek Y,” says that with reference to certain scientific 
terms derived from the Greek, as they are to be met with in the British Pharma¬ 
copoeia and elsewhere, we find both error and inconsistency in the conversion of 
the letter upsilon. “ Thus, on the one hand,” he continues, u we have oxygen and 
oxide, but, on the other, hydrogen and hydride, or hydration.” 
Now in the latter three of these words, formed, as they are universally ad¬ 
mitted to be, from the Greek vdcop (hydrogen from vdcop + the root of yeveiv), the 
letter y appears as an equivalent of the upsilon \ and, taking it for granted, as 
Dr. Harley seems to do, that the former words are both derived from 6£vs (oxygen 
from o|uy + the root of yevetv), it certainly looks like an error to write oxide 
with an i and not with a y. But, while admitting that the first portion of the 
word oxygen is derived from 6^vs, are we justified in assuming that, beyond all 
question, oxide owes its origin directly to the same source? True it is that in 
the Dictionary of the French Academy (1842) the word is spelt oxyde, and that 
in Bescherelle’s Dictionnaire National (1857) we find the same orthography, fol¬ 
lowed by this remark :—“ Quelques dictionnaires ecrivent avec un i oxide et ses 
derives, mais nous croyons que conformement a l’etymologie, il vaut mieux 
ecrire ces mots avec un y.” But, in Ogilvie’s Dictionary, we have oxide given 
as the correct spelling, and o£oy, in addition to o£vs, as the source of the word. 
VOL. xi. 2 F 
