96 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS; 
[August 3,1872» 
tives of South Germany, was appointed to prepare the 
Pharmacopoeia. They commenced their labours in 
September, 1871, and having - invited the co-operation of 
men ot eminence in different departments, they com¬ 
pleted the task in December of the same year. 
due work is written in Latin, and the reasons as¬ 
signed for adopting that language are, that it is under¬ 
stood everywhere, and that medical men ai - e accustomed 
to write their prescriptions in Latin. 
As in the case of other modern Pharmacopoeias, the 
quantities ot ingredients ordered in the processes are 
represented by proportional numbers, no reference being 
made to any particular weights or measures; indeed, 
there is not even a table of weights or measures given in 
the book, the subject being disposed of with the follow¬ 
ing remark in the preface, “As to the weights to be 
used in pharmaceutical laboratories, we have omitted to 
add a special table, as they are prescribed by law through¬ 
out the whole German Empire.” At the end of the book, 
however, there is a posological table in which the doses 
are expressed in grammes, and in another place it is stated 
that measures are never to be used, but that the quantities 
even of liquids are to be determined by weight. 
lhe articles are all arranged alphabetically in one 
general list, as they are in the British Pharmacopoeia. 
A table of atomic weights is given, in which the new 
atomic numbers are used; and in the few instances in 
v. hich symbolic formulae are employed, they are con- 
sti ucted according to the new or unitary system. Sym¬ 
bolic formulae, however, are but very sparingly used— 
in only some twelve cases throughout the entire work. 
lhe names applied to chemical substances are such as 
have been used in previous German Pharmacopoeias, and 
they frequently differ considerably from those used in 
this country. It is stated in the preface that, “ with 
respect to those drugs, whether simple or prepared, which 
belong to chemistry, it seemed advisable to use chiefly 
those names that have long been used by medical men 
and phai macists, as also in books that record remedies 
and methods of treatment. It was probably the deter¬ 
mination to retain these names that prevented the more 
general employment of symbolic formulae, for as the 
modem system of notation is adopted, this would not 
accoid with some of the old chemical names. Thus, 
sulphate of iron is Ferrttm sulphuricum , and sulphate of 
soda is iiat) um sulphuricum , but the term natrum repre¬ 
sents the alkaloid soda, and not the metal, which is 
represented by natrium, as in natrium chloratum , common 
salt. IS ow if the symbolic formula were given for 
■natrum sulphuricum, as the new system is followed, it 
would represent it as sulphate of sodium, and not of 
sola (JNa.,b0 4 ), thus making the name and the formula 
inconsistent one with the other. Therefore as the old 
name is retained, the formula which is founded on new 
and altered views is omitted. In the British Pharma¬ 
copoeia, a similar course was pursued with regard to the 
retention of old names, but to justify the use of symbolic 
formulae without involving- inconsistency, and at the 
same time without ignoring the system generally 
adopted by scientific chemists, it was determined to 
mseit formulae according to both systems. That course 
was admissible at the time the last edition of the British 
Pharmacopoeia was published, but it would hardlv be 
so now, as the new notation has almost entirelv super¬ 
seded the other. The authors of the German Pharma¬ 
copoeia, therefore, had but two courses before them 
either to insert symbolic formulae according to the new 
system, and to change the names so as to correspond 
v, it i the formulae, or retaining the old names to omit the 
fui umbo. Ihev have adopted the latter course. Very 
v 1 I ht 1 f hail "? s *?■ t}l . e names would have removed the 
difficulty, and this might have been done without alter¬ 
ing the general construction of the Latin names hitherto 
used m German pharmacy, if it had been particularly 
desired to retain that construction. All that would 
ha\ e been required would be to change Magnesia sul¬ 
phur ica, the present name of Epsom salts, to Magnesium 
sulphuricum , and to make other changes in a similar 
direction. Theie is, however, one view of the case that 
tends to reconcile us to what has been clone, and it is, 
that in the prospect of a full discussion of the desirability - 
of having even a more general Pharmacopoeia than the 
Pharmacopoea Germanica, one, namely, that should 
embody the formulae of the I’harmacopceias of all nations 
—an universal Pharmacopoeia—the question must neces¬ 
sarily arise as to what nomenclature is the best and should, 
be adopted. And the necessity for settling this question, 
as well as others of equal importance, such as the strength, 
and composition of compound medicines, in the event of 
undertaking a Universal Pharmacopoeia, supplies a 
motive for urging that undertaking forward, and adds 
to the probability of its accomplishment. 
If the question of chemical nomenclature as applied to- 
saline compounds were fully considered on its merits, it 
would probably be found that there are names better 
suited for pharmaceutic use than those used in German 
pharmacy. Kali sulphuricum is their name for sulphate 
of potash and Kalium iodatum for iodide of potassium, 
Kali standing for the alkali, and Kalium for the metal. 
So again, sulphate of soda is natrum sulphuricum , and 
common salt natrium chloratum. In translating these 
terms into English some doubt might arise whether 
iodatum and chloratum signified iodide and chloride or 
iodate and chlorate, but the latter terms are represented 
by iodicum and chloricum. 
It is much to be regretted that the chemical nomen¬ 
clature applied to medicines ordered in different phar¬ 
macopoeias should differ as it docs. Surely medical 
men and pharmacists might be brought to agree to one 
general system to be universally used in medicine. 
There would seem to be less difficulty in accomplishing 
this object than in getting all to agree as to what medi¬ 
cines should be ordered and how they should be com¬ 
pounded. At present the three great neighbouring 
nations, France, Germany and England, have three 
perfectly distinct systems of chemical nomenclature in 
their pharmacopoeias, as will be seen by referring to- 
the following names applied to three chemical sub¬ 
stances :— 
French. 
Sulphas sodicus. 
Carbonas calci- 
cus 
Oxidum ferricum 
German. 
Natrum sulphuri¬ 
cum. 
Calcaria carbonica 
Ferrum oxidatum. 
English. 
Sodae sulphas. 
Calcis carbonas. 
Ferri perovidum. 
Fortunately synonyms are often given, and these, 
especially where there is no symbolic formula, assist in 
explaining what the name is intended to refer to. Thus 
the name i( Natrum subsulfurosum ” used in the Pharma¬ 
copoea Germanica might puzzle even a chemist, occur¬ 
ring as it does without any process being given for its 
preparation, or any chemical formula representing its 
composition, if it were not accompanied by a synonym,. 
“A at rum hgposulphurosum .” So again the name 
“ Tartarus natronatus ,” although not very unlike the 
name given in our pharmacopoeia, is rendered more 
clear by having the synonyms appended, “ Natro-Kali 
tartaricum" and “ tial polgchrestum Seignetti.” All will 
agree in thinking, however, that a symbolic formula 
would have made this clearer. 
Not only is the new German 1 harmacopoeia very 
sparing in the use of symbolic formula}, but also in 
describing processes for the production of chemical 
compounds. This omission is accounted for by a state¬ 
ment in the preface that, “ as numerous chemical 
preparations are better and more correctly made in 
large laboratories from which they are supplied to 
pharmacists either directly or through wholesale dealers, 
instructions are only given in the Pharmacopoeia for the 
makm_, of certain chemicals, especially those whose 
composition or properties are dependent upon some 
