April 8,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
803 
tional sentences respecting chemical notation. All 
teachers of chemistry, including the authors of nearly 
every modern manual, with remarkable unanimity 
have relinquished the old system of notation, that 
which was exclusively employed in the British Phar¬ 
macopoeia of 1864, and have, to a greater or less ex¬ 
tent, adopted the* new. In the present (1867) Phar¬ 
macopoeia the new notation is represented by for¬ 
mulae printed in Egyptian type (KN O a ), the old by 
formulae in Homan (KO,NO-l; a course suggested 
by the unsettled condition of the subject at the time 
this Pharmacopoeia was published. It is to be ex¬ 
pected that the next British Pharmacopoeia—still I 
“ representing accurately, yet with caution, the ad¬ 
vancement made in chemistry and pharmacy ” ( vide 
Preface), and reflecting the settled practice of scien¬ 
tific chemists—will employ the usual chemical sym¬ 
bols as expressive of the new atomic weights (O = 16) 
to the exclusion of the old (O = 8), and will alto¬ 
gether discard the hypothesis of the constitution of 
salts involved in such formula) as KO,NO s , or (ac¬ 
cepting the new atomic weights) K 2 0,N 2 0 5 , using 
only the less theoretical formulae (e.g. KN 0 3 ) which 
are now employed by the majority of teachers. The 
following formulae will further illustrate what has 
just been stated :— 
Old and New Chemical Formula:. 
Old atomic 
Old atomic 
New atomic 
New atomic 
New atomic 
weights and 
weights and weights with 
weights with 
weights with 
dualistic 
binary 
dualistic 
binary 
unitary 
hypothesis. 
hypothesis. 
hypothesis. 
hypothesis. 
hypothesis. 
ko,no 5 
k,no 6 
k 2 o,n 2 o 5 
K, N 0 3 
KNO, 
ko,co 2 
k,co 3 
k 2 o,co 2 
K o ,C0 3 
K 2 co 3 
MgO, S0 3 
Mg, S 0 4 
MgO, SO, 
Mg, S 0 4 
MgS0 4 
HgCl 
Hg Cl 
HgCl 2 
HgCl 2 
Hg Cl 2 
K, 39 ; Mg, 12 ; 
Hg, 100; 
N, 14; 0,8; C,6; 
S, 16; Cl, 35'5. 
K, 39 ; Mg, 24; 
Hg,200; 
N, 14; 0,16; C,12 
; S, 32 ; Cl,35' 
■5. 
Nitre. 
Pearlasli (anhydrous) . 
Epsom salt (anhydrous) 
Corrosive sublimate . . 
Old atomic weights . . 
New atomic weights . . 
Little more need be said in favour of the exclusive 
employment of modern chemical notation in future 
British Pharmacopoeias. Arguments for or against 
the atomic and other theories and hypotheses con¬ 
cerning the constitution of salts on which this nota¬ 
tion is based would be out of place in this paper. 
The old system is given up by chemists; the new is 
already officially recognized by the Council under 
whose authority the Pharmacopoeia is issued, and by 
the various examining Boards,* and is adopted in 
educational works on chemistry. 
These are sufficient reasons for justifying us in 
the expectation of seeing the new notation, if any, 
alone employed in the third British Pharmacopoeia. 
Tliis much on chemical notation it was desirable to 
state; for it is inseparably connected with the chemi¬ 
cal nomenclature of a Pharmacopoeia. Indeed, nota¬ 
tion and nomenclature should obviously harmonize, 
seeing that they are simply different methods of ex¬ 
pressing the thoughts and wants of everybody re¬ 
specting chemical substances. Formulae are more 
comprehensive than names, and convey to the mind 
far more information, but they are intelligible only 
to the educated chemist. Names comprise less 
knowledge, but are more or less understood by 
all and suffice for general purposes. To formulae, 
however, we look to ascertain the views of chemists 
concerning the constitution of chemical compounds, 
* Extracts prom Letters to the Author. 
Royal College of Physicians, London. “I am instructed 
to say that the Examiners here accept either notation. While 
themselves adopting the new, they are unwilling to jeopar¬ 
dize the chances of those who have been educated and accus¬ 
tomed to the old.”—Henry Moody, Secretary. 
Royal College of Surgeons, London. “Only in the Pre¬ 
liminary Examination is chemistry included. The new system 
of notation is adopted by the Examiners.”—Edward Trimmer, 
Secretary. 
The Society for Apothecaries, London. “ Candidates are 
allowed to use the old or the new notation, according as they 
have been instructed.”—R. H. Robertson, Secretary. 
The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. “ The new 
notation is recognized by the Board, but candidates having 
an imperfect knowledge of this system are not rejected if they 
possess a sufficient acquaintance with the old notation.”— 
Elias Bremridge, Secretary. 
and it is on these views that chemical nomenclature 
is founded. 
Disadvantages attending alterations in Nomencla¬ 
ture. —Thus far have I endeavoured to outline the 
progress of chemistry in those directions which affect 
chemical nomenclature, those which suggest modifi¬ 
cation in the chemical names of pliarmacopceial sub¬ 
stances. Such names as nitrate of potash and 
sulphate of magnesia are unwarrantably theoretic 
and not now current in chemical literature. How 
can these and similar names be modified, and to 
what extent must modification be carried? Before 
answering the question and proposing a modified 
system of nomenclature, I would allude to (a) the 
alteration of chemical names as involving disadvan¬ 
tages, and (b) the properties of names. The disadvan¬ 
tages are obvious, unquestionable, and to be avoided 
whenever practicable. Scientific chemists, those 
with whom originate new discoveries of specific and 
generic truths, meet with these difficulties to a very 
small extent. Modification and extension of mental 
views respecting the constitution of chemical com¬ 
pounds are necessarily accompanied by modification 
and extension of the language in which those views 
are expressed; hence alterations in chemical nomen¬ 
clature are naturally met with in the original memoirs 
recording new discoveries. Indeed, altered nomen¬ 
clature is advantageous, rather than the opposite, 
while confined to the literature of original research, 
for it assists the mind hi comprehending new truths. 
But such restriction is only possible for a time. 
Each additional discovery, whether relating to old 
substances or new, gives additional impetus to the 
ever-advancing waves of knowledge until the old 
landmarks have to be removed or relinquished, 
and reconstruction becomes inevitable. Here com¬ 
mence difficulties ; for while alteration in language is 
easy and convenient to followers of pure science, 
because a natural consequence of altered mental 
views, it is excessively troublesome and inconvenient 
to the followers of applied science, who have to en¬ 
tertain the alterations first and the reasons after¬ 
wards. 
More than tliis, most serious consequences have 
sometimes resulted to patients from one medicine 
