September 23,1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
259 
*+* No notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith. 
Pharmaceutical Nomenclature. 
Sir,—Your last number contains some remarks by Mr. 
C. R. C. Tickborne on my recent paper “ The Chemical No¬ 
menclature of the Pharmacopoeia.” Mr. Tichborne concurs 
in nearly all I have written on the subject, and gives a sup¬ 
port which is the more valuable, because coming from a 
thoughtful and zealous worker in pharmacy as well as in 
chemical science, one whose foresight fourteen years ago 
detected the importance of the ideas embodied in modern 
chemical notation and nomenclature; on a single point my 
friend seems to differ from me. He appears to dissent from 
any proposition that “ the time has come when, by making a 
few slight alterations in the terminal syllables of some of our 
chemical names, we shall have a system of pharmaceutical 
nomenclature which, while perfectly harmonious with, is 
quite independent of, scientific chemical nomenclature, and 
which, therefore, contains greater elements of permanence 
than any yet adopted.” He says, “ A nomenclature is only 
& system for the conveyance of facts.” It is not to be sup¬ 
posed that we could have two nomenclatures harmonizing 
equally, if at all, with facts. As well might we state that 
pharmacy should have an arithmetic of its own, and that 1 
and 1 in mathematics should make 2, but in pharmacy they 
should make 3. Now, Sir, I beg to apologize to you and to 
him for employing the following phraseology, but, respecting 
this sum in simple addition, I really must ask the gentleman 
who signs himself C. It. C. Tichborne if he would be surprised 
to learn that the writer entirely agrees with him? Indeed, 
with regard to the matter of which this sum is an illustration, 
perhaps that very intelligent jury, your readers, will not be 
astonished when I tell them that the claimant to the above 
arame and the undersigned entirely agree with each other. 
Let us see. Here are examples of the old set of names:— 
THE OLD NOMENCLATURE. 
Nitrate of potash. 
Phosphate of soda. 
Sulphate of magnesia. 
'These names are no longer used in chemistry, because they 
do not represent chemical truth so far as it is now known, 
and as it is now being tauglit to the men who will in a few 
short years succeed the pharmacists of the present day. Fol¬ 
lowers of modern chemistry, including Mr. Tichborne and 
myself, are unanimous in discarding this old system, and in 
following the new. 
THE NEW NOMENCLATURE. 
Variety 1. 
Nitrate of potassium. 
Phosphate of sodium. 
Sulphate of magnesium. 
Variety 2. 
Potassium nitrate. 
Sodium phosphate. 
Magnesium sulphate. 
Variety 3. 
Potassic nitrate. 
Sodic nitrate. 
Magnesic sulphate. 
Here is the point. What I have just called Variety 1 of the 
new nomenclature is alluded to in my proposition as a dis¬ 
tinct system of pharmaceutical nomenclature,—a way of 
putting the matter which, I must admit, is liable to mislead, 
and which has misled Mr. Ince and Mr. Tichborne, and pos¬ 
sibly other friends. From what I now write, it will be 
obvious that what I advocate is not one distinct system of 
chemical nomenclature for pharmacy and another for scien¬ 
tific chemistry, but that in pharmacy and medicine one of the 
current modifications (Variety 1) of the new chemical nomen¬ 
clature should exclusively be employed,—the one supported 
by Mr. Tichborne. 
May I be allowed to add two remarks, the one fairly per¬ 
tinent, the other just a trace impertinent. The first is, that 
the proposed sj’stem of pharmaceutical nomenclature—or, 
pace Tichborne, the selected modification of the new chemical 
nomenclature—may be adopted by even the grey-haired with¬ 
out one backward step towards school, nay, without an 
effort. The second is, that the medical practitioner and the 
pharmacist may as w T ell adopt the method at once, for nolens 
volens the new will certainly displace the old, and while pre¬ 
scriptions are written in Latin no other variety of the new is 
possible. 
I hope you will not consider this explanation uncalled for 
and unworthy insertion, because, like most explanations, 
arguments and controversies, it ends in a mere definition of 
terms. I know, too, that I am riding a hobby, and trust 
that the nag’s present healthy circulation will thereby be 
maintained. The proposal to adopt this form of chemical 
nomenclature in future editions of the Pharmacopoeias of all 
countries has hitherto met with nothing but encouragement. 
I am anxious that not even an apparent objection to the 
system should remain unanswered. 
John Attpield. 
The Council of the North British Branch op the 
Pharmaceutical Societt. 
Sir,—Mr. Fairlie writes in his last letter, “Having hitherto 
received nothing but kindness at the hands of our Edinburgh 
brethren, we only wish that good feeling will continue to be 
reciprocated between us.” 
This is in strange antagonism with Mr. Fairlie’s ungene¬ 
rous attack upon those from whom he has received “nothing 
but kindness,” and who have had the most harmonious inter¬ 
course h therto with our friends in Glasgow, not only with 
those who have attended our meetings, but also with those 
who have been unable to attend. 
Mr. Fairlie implies, if he docs not absolutely assert, that 
the members of Council of the North British Branch are per¬ 
sonally benefited by the money obtained from London for 
the necessary expenditure connected therewith. Having so 
recently become a member, Mr. Fairlie is probably not aware 
that for twenty-eight years Mr. John Mackay gave an amount 
of time and thought in the interest of the Society as Honorary 
Secretary, without receiving any remuneration whatever, 
thus saving the parent Society a very large sum, had a paid. 
Secretary been employed, which must otherwise have been 
the case; and but for his untiring exertions in the earlier 
years of the Society’s existence, pharmacy—in Scotland, at 
least—would have been in a very different condition to w T liat- 
it now is. Every sixpence of the very moderate amount re¬ 
ceived has been expended in the interest of the Society and, 
as Mr. Mackay points out, the Library and Museum (inade¬ 
quate as they are) belong to the Pharmaceutical Society of 
Great Britain, and no member of the Council here ever re¬ 
ceived the slightest remuneration for his time and services. 
One and all have had but one object in view—the advance¬ 
ment of pharmacy throughout Scotland. 
In conclusion, I cannot but regret that Mr. Fairlie was 
not earlier a member of the Society, when* “ he w r oukl have 
known of many a hard-fought battle, of many an anxious 
hour, of difficulties to surmount, prejudices to overcome in 
the unllincking desire that name and position should be ob¬ 
tained” for pharmacy in Scotland. 
Edinburgh, Sept. 13th, 1871. II. B. Baildon. 
Sir,—I cannot refrain from protesting, not only against 
the columns of our scientific Journal being taken up with 
such excessively personal attacks on members of our body, 
but more particularly that old and valued men amongst us 
should feel themselves called upon to spend their time and 
patience in inditing lengthy epistles in vindication of acts 
done in their official capacity, which, but for the violent 
tirades of some w’ould-be agitator, should never be called in 
question. I am sure, Sir, you will agree with me, that it is 
quite time a limit should be put on the “liberty of the sub¬ 
ject ” in this matter, and enter your protest with mine in the 
next Journal. 
William Hartley. 
7, Church Street, St. Andrew's, September 13 th, 1871. 
* See Pharm. Journ. Vol. XI. 2nd series, p. 25. 
