February 24,1872.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
699 
In the formula;, the quantities of the several ingre¬ 
dients are always indicated in parts hy weight, without 
reference to any specified weights ; hut, for practical 
use, the metrical system of weights and measures is that 
which alone is authorized. 
With reference to the keeping or storing of medicines, 
instructions are given that the most dangerous poisons, 
of which there is a list, should have a distinctive mark 
on the labels attached to them, and he kept hy them¬ 
selves ; while another distinctive mark is to be affixed 
to other less dangerous substances, of which there is also 
a list. 
BOOKS RECEIVED. 
•• 
Medizinische Jahrbucher, herausgegeben von der K. 
K. Gesellschaft der Aerzte. Redigirt von S. Stricker. 
1871. IV. Heft. A r ienna. 
Report on the Molecular Dissociation by Heat of 
Compounds in Solution. By C. R. C. Tichborne, 
E.C.S., M.R.I.A. 
Sun un Nouveau Dissolvant de l’Iodure Plombiqtje 
et son Application a la Piiarmacie. Par Donato 
Tommasi. Paris: Ra^on et C ic . 1872. 
Consumption and the Breath Re-breathed. By 
Henry MacCormac, M.D. London: Longmans. 
The Uses of Plants in Food, Arts and Commerce. 
By Ellis A. Davidson. London: Cassell. 
Our Food. By Ellis A. Davidson. London: Cassell. 
From the Publishers. 
MEETINGS FOR THE ENSUING WEEK. 
Monday. London Institution, at 4p.m. —“Elementary 
Feb. 26. Chemistry.” By Professor Odling. 
Medical Society, at 8 P.M. 
Tuesday . Roual Institution, at 3 p.m. —“On the Ner- 
Feb. 27. vous and Circulating Systems.” By Dr. 
Rutherford. 
Royal Medical and Clnrurgical Society, at 
8.30 p.m. 
Wednesday. ..Society of Arts, at 8 p.m. —“The Production 
Feb. 28. of Jewellery by Machinery.” By Mr. W. 
G. Larkins. 
Thursday. Royal Society, at 8.30 p.m. 
Feb. 29. Royal Institution, at 3 p.m. —“ The Chemistry 
of Alkalies and Alkali Manufacture.” By 
Professor Odling. 
Friday. Royal Institution, at 9 p.m. —“Measuring 
March 1. Temperatures by Electricity.” By Mr. C. 
W. Siemens. 
•Saturday. Royal Institution, at 3 p.m. —“ Demonology.” 
March 2. By Mr. Moncure Conway. 
The following journals have been received:—The ‘British 
Medical Journal,’ Feb. 17 ; the ‘Medical Times and Gazette,’ 
Feb. 17 ; the ‘Lancet,’ Feb. 17; the ‘ Medical Press and Cir¬ 
cular,’ Feb. 21; ‘ Nature,’ Feb. 17 ; the ‘ Chemical News,’ Feb. 
17; ‘English Mechanic,’ Feb. 16; ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ 
Feb. 17; the ‘Grocer,’ Feb. 17; the ‘Journal of the Society 
of Arts,’ Feb. 17; the ‘Chemist and Druggist,’ Feb. 15; 
‘ Neues Repertorium fiir Pharmacie,’ bd. xx. heft 12 ; ‘ Re¬ 
pertoire de Pharmacie’ for January; the ‘Photographic 
Journal,’ Feb. 15; the ‘Grocery News and Oil Journal,’ 
Feb. 16; ‘Carlisle Express and Examiner,’ Feb. 17; ‘ Zig¬ 
zag,’' Feb. 17; ‘Evening Gazette, for Middlesborough, Stock- 
ton and District,’ Feb. 16. 
Corrosptiimc. 
*** 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 Education. 
Sir,—I have just read in the Pharmaceutical Journal 
for January 20, an address on pharmaceutical education, by 
Mr. Siebold, and having a few weeks since gone through the 
ordeal of the Minor examination at the North British 
Branch of the Pharmaceutical Society, I am not prepared to 
bear out Mr. Siebold’s statements. I will not deny that 
botany is more prominent than it need be, especially struc¬ 
tural botany; for instance, in asking candidates for the 
Minor Examination such questions as—What is a synge- 
nesious flower ? What a dioecious flower ? Give the diag¬ 
nosis of certain Natural Orders, etc. Such questions are not 
only unfair, but absurd, and not at all according to the sylla¬ 
bus of the examination. Besides, botany is a subject which, 
in my humble opinion, requires more study than most stu¬ 
dents have in their power to bestow upon it, and I hope that 
ere long questions will be asked in this part of the examination, 
which it is more necessary for students to be posted up in. 
Mr. Siebold says that qualified men frequently fail, while 
unqualified men pass. This, even as an exception, I do not 
think is the case. I understand that if a candidate makes a 
certain percentage in each subject he will pass; and I do not 
think the standard number of marks is at all too high for any 
one with a good general knowledge of the subjects. Air. S. 
speaks about the nervousness of the candidates and the harsh¬ 
ness of the examiners. If such is the case, I for one failed to 
see it. On entering the hall on the morning of the exami¬ 
nation I must say 1 felt rather nervous, but no sooner was I 
seated with the first examiner than his courteous bearing 
completely dispelled this feeling; and I can bear testimony 
to the fact that what I experienced from the first examiner 
I experienced from all the others. Instead of causing nervous¬ 
ness, they seemed anxious to allay such feelings. 
Air. S. also thinks that pharmacy ought to be discarded, 
on the ground of its endangering a candidate’s success; but 
in this 1 cannot agree, as the specimens of extracts, tinctures 
and compound powders generally shown are most prominent 
ones, and ought to be easily recognized, and the proportions 
of such as are compound should be on the finger-ends of 
every one daily engaged in dispensing medicines. 
Air. S. speaks about candidates lor the Alodified examina¬ 
tion not being allowed to show their scientific attainments. 
I think, then, that with so few subjects, and so little demand 
for science from them, it is a shame that so many fail. The 
very word ‘modified’ explains their examination better than 
words can do. 
Again, as to dispensing, Air. S. says it ought to be ex¬ 
cluded, owing to the awkwardness displayed by candidates 
who in their own places of business could make a different 
appearance; but I do not believe there is any examiner but 
allows for those little displays of awkwardness, provided he 
sees that the candidate understands what he is doing. If a 
candidate has been properly trained in this branch of his busi¬ 
ness, there is little fear of his failure. 
In conclusion, looking at the examination as a whole, I 
think the reform Mr. S. would insist upon is quite uncalled 
for, with the exception of botany, which perhaps could be 
modified with advantage. All the other subjects ought to be 
strictly enforced. I may mention that I met some young 
men from England the day before the examination in Edin¬ 
burgh ; they were for the Modified examination, and from 
what I saw of them that day in the hall of the Society, I came 
to the conclusion that if they passed the examination was not 
what it ought to be. I found out next day that only two out 
of seven that came up for that examination had got through, 
and I wa3 not at all astonished at the result. 
Lorres, Feb. 14 th, 1872. Alexander Fraser. 
Sir,—For a scientific man of high attainments, Mr. Agnew 
seems strangely deficient in that most important “ prelimi¬ 
nary,” accuracy in the use of terms; for I beg to deny that 
there is a syllable of “personal abuse,” “splenetic ” or other¬ 
wise, in my former letter. I willingly leave your readers to 
judge whether or not my “satire ” was “ misplaced.” While 
