THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [September 1C, 1871. 
234 
a gallon of liquor bismutlii, having the samo strength as 
the solution of the Pharmacopoeia:— 
Oxide of Bismuth.9 oz. 
Citric Acid.16 oz. 
Strong Solution of Ammonia . 12 fl. oz. or q. s. 
Water.q. s. 
Dissolve 8 oz. of the citric acid in 4 oz. of hot water, and 
■ carefully neutralize it with some of the solution of am¬ 
monia (about 7 fl. oz.), mixed with half its volume of 
water. Then add the other 8 oz. of citric acid, and when 
.it has dissolved introduce the oxide of bismuth. Heat the 
mixture to near its boiling-point for about fifteen minutes, 
with frequent stirring, then add about a pint of water 
and introduce sufficient ammonia to dissolve the in- 
.soluble portion, and render the liquid slightly alkaline. 
.Augment the solution to the volume of one gallon, and 
filter through paper. 
It will be found upon heating the mixture that the 
pale yellow colour of the oxide rapidly changes to a pure 
white, and at the same time the insoluble portion be¬ 
comes more bulky. These signs indicate the conversion 
of the oxide into citrate of bismuth; the digestion is 
continued for a little time to ensure the perfect comple¬ 
tion of this change. The ammonia, subsequently added, 
should effect a complete solution, leaving nothing inso¬ 
luble but the dust, etc., inevitably present in the powder 
taken. 
As the oxide of bismuth employed is quite as definite 
a substance as the metal itself, it follows that the result¬ 
ing liquor will be as uniform in strength as if prepared 
according to the process of the Pharmacopoeia. 
The Proposed Changes in the Nomenclature of 
the Pharmacopoeia. 
BY C. It. C. TICHBORNE, F.C.S., M.lt.I.A., ETC. 
Professor Attfield has lately proposed that certain 
-changes should be made in the nomenclature of the British 
Pharmacopoeia; that the modern notation should be 
used only, and that the terms employed should coincide 
with that notation. Thus in the present Pharmacopoeia 
two notations are employed but only one nomenclature, 
and the framers of that work gave preference to that 
notation which harmonized with the old system; this, 
however, is now nearly obsolete. 
Professor Attfield’s Manual of Chemistry has made 
such rapid progress in public estimation, that it may be 
considered to have almost become the medical and phar¬ 
maceutical text-book of chemistry. 
Its reputation is not one iota in advance of its merits, 
and as the originator of such a work, Professor Attfield’s 
words come with even more force than they otherwise 
would. The general tenor of his recommendation is to 
the effect that wo should retain some part of what is 
known as the Lavoisierian mode of nomenclature, but 
substituting the metallic names throughout for the al¬ 
kalies and alkaline earths. 
Thus we should say sulphate of sodium, sulphate of 
iron, carbonate of magnesium, etc., instead of sulphate 
of soda, sulphate of iron or carbonate of magnesia. Also 
that we should discard the old atomic weights and use 
the new atomic weights alone. 
With all this, I, as one humble worker in the field of 
.science, heartily agree. Fourteen years ago I advocated 
these new-fangled ideas as they were then termed, and 
have consistently used them in practice. So little were 
such views entertained at that time, that with one ex¬ 
ception, there was not another chemist in Dublin who 
even acknowledged the probable correctness of such a 
system. What a change has been wrought in these 
fourteen years! This was the system used by Aug. 
Hofmann when the writer was at the College of Che¬ 
mistry, and it will perhaps be in the memory of some 
-.of the gentlemen present that exactly a similar system 
is used in his (Dr. Hofmann’s) Report on the Exhibition 
of 1862. In speaking of this matter in the introduction 
to that work, ho says, “The symbolic notation em¬ 
ployed in this report requires a few words of explanation 
here, and perhaps also of justification. It differs from 
the notation still in use only by the doubling of the 
equivalents usually assigned to oxygen, carbon, sulphur 
and a few other elements. Slight, however, as this 
change is, it suffices to alter materially the aspect of 
many formuke, and to those who still adhere to the old 
notation it may give a little trouble which the reporter 
would willingly have spared them. For this reason, 
indeed, he hesitated a good deal before deciding to em¬ 
ploy the modified notation. To this decision, however, 
lie was ultimately brought by the reflection that the 
modified notation is essentially necessary to represent 
with the requisite clearness and precision the vast and 
daily multiplying class of substitution changes, and that 
on this ground only, if on no other, the double equiva¬ 
lents must ere long come into universal use.” The 
author then uses the terms carbonate of sodium, sul¬ 
phate of ammonium, etc. Dr. Attfield wishes to substi¬ 
tute a similar system for the Pharmacopoeia, such a 
system that whilst giving due prominence to all the 
most firmly established theories of modern chemistry, 
also does away with such inconsistencies as calling one 
salt the sulphate of the oxide, and another salt, exactly 
framed upon the same type, the sulphate of the metal. 
It enables us to view all these salts as constructed upon 
one given framework. 
But outside this the system does not go; and when from 
time to time extreme terms are introduced to convey spe¬ 
cial or extreme theories, they should not be considered in 
any system intended for general instruction, but should 
be strictly confined to the writers of original research. 
But at the same time the fraction of any science neces¬ 
sary for the furtherance of any other art, must harmonize 
with knowledge to which we have attained; thus far 
must we go and no farther. It is for this reason that I 
agree so thoroughly with what Dr. Attfield has advo¬ 
cated. I might, perhaps, object to a few of the indi¬ 
vidual names which he has proposed, but really these 
things are so much a matter of taste, and his paper has 
been so well and ably discussed, that I do not consider 
this the time or place to enter into such small matters. 
Dr. Attfield makes use of a paragraph which seems to 
lay down a principle, which principle would, however, 
hardly agree with the practice of his own paper. . Gi'eat 
prominence has been given to this supposed principle by 
some of the reviewers. Thus, an excellently-conducted 
one, the Chemist and Druggist , says, “ Clearly he has 
proved his point, and shown that chemistry and phar¬ 
macy, though branches of the same science, have dis¬ 
tinctive characters, and that it will be for the mutual 
advantage of both to adopt a nomenclature of their 
own.” 
Now, I must dissent from this view. A nomencla¬ 
ture is only a system for the conveyance of facts. It is 
not to be supposed that we could have two nomencla¬ 
tures harmonizing equally, if at all, with facts. As well 
might we some years since, when the avoirdupois ounce 
was substituted for the troy ounce, have said that as the 
division of the pound gave 437*5 grains to the ounce 
(which was inconvenient), pharmacy should have an 
arithmetic of its own, and that 1 and 1 in mathematics 
made 2, but in phaimacy they should make 3. No! 
We must have the same chemistry for the philosopher, 
the same chemistry for the pharmaceutist, and the same 
chemistry for the medical man,—in other words, as 
near the truth as the science of the day will take us, and 
nothing but the truth. It was for this reason that I saw 
with pleasure that Dr. Attfield hit hard at such terms as 
aeidiim arseniosum , which, from a chemical point of 
view, are radically wrong. We are informed that there 
is not likely to be a new edition of the Pharmacopoeia 
for some time, but I am quite convinced that when it 
