8G2 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[April 29, 1871. 
ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON 
THE CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE OF 
THE BRITISH PHARMACOPOEIA. 
BY PROFESSOR ATTFIELD. 
The discussion on this paper at a recent Pharma¬ 
ceutical Meeting extended so much beyond the usual 
hour of adjournment that I could only express my 
appreciation of the support the chief suggestions re¬ 
ceived ; I would now reply to one or two of the points 
raised, and make some additional observations. 
The Proposed System of Pharmaceutical Nomen¬ 
clature. —It will be remembered that my leading 
proposition was, “that the compounds of the alkali 
metals and alkaline earth metals, instead of being 
named as hitherto, on two distinct systems, should 
follow but one; that instead of salts of potassium 
and potash we should have salts of potassium only; 
instead of sodium and soda compounds sodium only ; 
and so with preparations of ammonium, lithium, 
calcium, magnesium and aluminium.” The eminent 
chemical and pharmaceutical authorities who spoke 
on the occasion—Professors Frankland, Odling, 
and Redwood—entirely concurred with this sug¬ 
gestion, and I have now the gratification of stating 
that the leading weekly medical periodicals—the 
Lancet, Medical Times and Gazette and British Me¬ 
dical Journal —have given their support to the plan; 
in short, that no objection to it has at present been 
raised. 
With respect to the question of Professor Frank¬ 
land as to the method of distinguishing between 
similar salts of one metal, e. y. the two sulphates 
of iron, I would, whenever such a course may be¬ 
come necessary, add to the name a word or an 
initial syllable recalling some prominent difference 
in the properties of the two compounds: thus, green 
sulphate of iron and persulphate of iron ; these names 
are, to the pharmacist, more familiar and distinctive 
than the more chemically useful names Professor 
Frankland proposes, “sulphate of ferrosum” and 
“ sulphate of ferricummoreover, I fear that phy¬ 
sicians in writing prescriptions would contract both 
the latter to fer. sulph. Again, there are two chlo¬ 
rides of tin, stannous chloride and stannic chloride, 
neither used in medicine, and only as analytical re¬ 
agents in pharmacy; hence they might well be dis¬ 
tinguished pharmaceutically as well as chemically 
by the names just given; or if it be undesirable to 
introduce this one exception to the general principle 
advocated, the compounds might be termed respec¬ 
tively solid chloride of tin and liquid chloride of 
tin, or crystalline chloride of tin and pcrcliloride 
of tin. 
With regard to the history of the chemical nomen¬ 
clature at present employed in Pharmacopceias, I 
have said that it was only “mainly” devised by 
Lavoisier, and believe that I have followed general 
custom in speaking of it as the Lavoisierian method; 
at the same time there can be no doubt, as indicated 
by Professor Odling, that it was gradually developed 
by the contributions of many minds. “The system 
of nomenclature—the joint production of Lavoisier, 
De Morveau, Berthollet and Fourcroy—published in 
1787 under the title ‘Metliode de Nomenclature 
Chimique, proposee par MM. de Morveau, Lavoisier, 
Berthollet, et de Fourcroy,’ still continues the foun¬ 
dation of the language which, with many variations 
in minor points, is employed by all chemists at the 
present day.” (Professor G. C. Foster’s article on 
“Nomenclature” in Watts’s ‘Dictionary of Che¬ 
mistry.’) I may add that the system I propose for 
adoption in medicine and pharmacy was employed 
in 1858 in Conington’s ‘ Handbook of Chemical 
Analysis,’ is much used in the dictionary just cited, 
is the leading nomenclature of the ‘ Manual of Che¬ 
mistry’ I first published in 18(57, has since been in¬ 
cluded in the labels of the chemical specimens in 
the Pharmaceutical Society’s museum, and for some 
years has been placed on the labels of at least one 
firm of English chemical manufacturers (Messrs. 
IPopkin and Williams). Hence it works well in 
practice. For scientific purposes it is scarcely suffi¬ 
ciently comprehensive; and for two or three years 
I have hesitated in proposing for applied chemistry 
a system of names not identical with the nomencla¬ 
ture of pure chemistry. As, however, there is still 
no indication that the two or three systems of names 
used by teachers of pure chemistry will ever merge 
into one, and as it would be impossible to employ 
more than one in applied chemistry, I do not think 
I act disloyally to, or influence otherwise than bene¬ 
ficially, the science I follow by selecting and adapt¬ 
ing one of the current systems for permanent employ¬ 
ment in medicine and pharmacy. 
The Exceptional Alterations. —I adhere to the 
opinion that the old and perfectly well-under¬ 
stood name arsenicum album is preferable to acid urn 
arseniosum. The body is not an acid in the sense 
in which every other acid in the Pharmacopoeia 
is an acid, and, therefore, should not officially be 
termed an acid. Such irregularities are prejudi¬ 
cial to the interests of chemistry and confusing to 
students. As for other anhydrides, it will be time 
enough to discuss their nomenclature when good in¬ 
dications appear of their official recognition. Chro¬ 
mic anhydride, or chromic caustic, might be termed 
red caustic, or red oxide of chromium. In the cases 
of the subcarbonate and subnitrate of bismuth, and 
the subacetates of copper and lead, it has been con¬ 
sidered by Professors Redwood and Odling that the 
prefix “ sub ” is not well substituted by “ oxy,” and 
I am disposed to agree in this opinion. Indeed, I 
have never strongly urged the adoption of the terms 
oxycarbonate, oxynitrate, oxyacetate, oxyhydrate as 
leading names, but have suggested that they would 
be highly serviceable as synonyms; I would now 
thus restrict the suggestion, and include in it the 
hydrato-carbonates of lead, magnesium and zinc. 
With respect to the “ scale ” preparations and some 
substances similarly named (tartarated antimony, 
tartarated iron, tartarated soda), I am glad to find 
that Professor Redwood coincides with me in think¬ 
ing that the existing names admit of improvement. 
I have suggested that alterations in these names 
should go so far as to make them consistent with the 
corresponding names of the three citrates. My only 
objection to the six names my colleague mentioned 
(ammonio-citrate of bismuth, ferro-citrate of quinia 
or quinine, etc.), is that similar compound words 
(aceto-nitrate, methyl-ethyl) are employed in che¬ 
mistry for the express purpose of suggesting intimate 
union between the bodies whose names are included 
in the compound word, no such union being pre¬ 
tended to exist in the case of these scaly and other 
preparations. There are some advantages to set 
against this objection, at the same time it is desirable 
that the nomenclature of chemistry and pharmacy 
should harmonize as much as possible. As for the 
