April 6,1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
803 
Lin. Sinapis Co. 
Oil of mustard, 14 fl. drs. N 
Etlier. ext. mezereon, 54§ 
grs. 
Camphor, 1C>4 grs. 
Castor oil, 7 £ 11. drs. 
Rectified spirit, 0 fl. oz. / 
' 14 fl. parts. 
1 part. 
3 parts. 
7-| fl. parts. 
, 48 fluid parts. 
Dr. Redwood has recommended in the case of Con¬ 
fection of Opium that the syrup should he taken by 
weight instead of measure. It might, however, as 
it appears to me, be equally well represented as fol¬ 
lows :— 
Comp. powd. of opium 194 grs. 7 C 4 parts. 
Syrup, 1 fl. oz. j 01 (9 fl. parts. 
These quantities are exactly in the proportion of 1 
part to 3 parts by weight. 
The course adopted by Professor Redwood in the 
treatment of the enemas is, I venture to think, open 
to some objection, inasmuch as it makes the metrical 
system appear unnecessarily complicated. 
If the formula for an enema is to be regarded as a 
prescription for one dose of medicine, it should be 
made to illustrate the method of prescribing in the 
new system as compared with the old, and should be 
equally simple in both cases. 
I would write the Enema of Aloes as follows 
Aloes, 45 grs. 
Carbonate of potash, 15 grs. 
Mucilage of starch, 10|- fl. oz. 
or 
'3 grammes. 
■ 1 gramme. 
,300 fl. grins. 
In this case 3 grammes is not given as the exact 
equivalent for 45 grains, but it represents the corre¬ 
sponding dose. The strength of the liquid produced 
by either formula is identical, but the quantity of 
product is only approximate. 
The approximation, however, is sufficiently near 
for all purposes of prescribing. 300 fluid grammes 
are equal to 10'.58 fluid ounces, or ^ of an ounce 
more than 10£. 
Enema of Assafcetida, on this plan, would be 'writ¬ 
ten. 
Assafoetida, 31 grains') or C2 grammes. 
Water, 4^ oz. ) \ 120 fluid grammes. 
120 fluid grammes are equal to 4'233 fluid ounces, 
or 0'017 less than 4f. 
It will, I think, be seen that if the proportional num¬ 
bers only were given in the Pharmacopoeia for all the 
processes to which I have now referred, it would not 
be easy to render them into the English weights and 
measures; at any rate, if small quantities of the 
products were required. The relationship is not 
easy to perceive, and until a little practice had been 
attained, somewhat irksome calculation would, as it 
appears to me, be necessary. The exclusive use of 
grain weights, and large glasses graduated to grain- 
measures, in all such cases would certainly remove 
this difficulty; but it must be remembered that com¬ 
paratively few pharmacies possess such sets of 
weights or measure-glasses. Moreover, many prac¬ 
tical pharmaceutists are but little accustomed to the 
employment of the grain-measure. If new weights 
and measures must be provided, it would be just as 
easy to obtain those of the metrical system at once; 
and it would probably require no greater effort to 
attain familiarity with grammes and cubic centime¬ 
tres, than to become habituated to grain-measures. 
Whether tills be so or not, placing the quanti¬ 
ties in the ordinary terms of our weights and mea¬ 
sures, side by side with the proportional numbers in 
all cases where the relationship is obscure, would, as 
I consider, remove any risk of inconvenience 
or error. It is true that to do this requires in many 
instances the use of fractions of grains; but it is 
only the the A and the ^ of a grain which are ne¬ 
cessary. These, however, could be readily cut from 
a grain weight, or could be purchased for a mere 
trifle. There can be no more difficulty in weighing 
an odd number of grains and a fraction, than in 
weighing an even number. Moreover, where these 
fractions occur it is generally in expressing the 
eighth, the sixteenth, the seventh, or the fourteenth 
part of an ounce; and as our sets of weights are 
always provided with the -| and the -| of an ounce, 
there would be no difficulty in adding the -§■ and the T \. 
These would stand for the exact amount which in 
the formula is expressed in grains. Indeed, if the 
appearance of such an awkward fraction as a third 
be objectionable in the Pharmacopoeia, I would sug¬ 
gest, as an alternative, writing -i-th or Aytli of an 
ounce, in place of the grains, which are equivalent, 
to that quantity. No one, I apprehend, would object, 
to add these weights to their sets. 
Bearing in mind that the avowed object of employ¬ 
ing proportional numbers in the pharmacopoeia is to- 
foster the introduction of the metrical system into 
English pharmacy, I think better service would be 
done to that cause by avoiding their use in the de¬ 
scription of processes for volumetric testing. In such 
cases I would at once use grammes and cubic centi¬ 
metres. 
By the employment of the metrical system for 
the analytical methods, it would obtain a more 
prominent place in the pharmacopoeia, which would 
be very serviceable to its future progress. 
Those who dislike its use could equally well em¬ 
ploy grains and grain-measures, for the numbers- 
would in every case remain the same. This alterna¬ 
tive might be indicated in the appendix in the same- 
manner that is now done for the metrical system. 
No inconvenience, therefore, could result from the 
exercise of this amount of official preference. 
I apprehend also that it would be of very little- 
use to make such important modifications in the 
pharmacopoeia as are now contemplated, for the sake- 
of obtaining an improved system of weights and 
measures, unless the doses of the drugs and prepa¬ 
rations are expressed in terms of the new system 
side by side until those of the old. The metrical 
system can obtain but very partial use in English 
pharmacy until it is introduced into the prescribing 
and dispensing, as well as the preparation of medi¬ 
cines. 
It is by learning the doses in metrical weights and 
measures, that the best knowledge of the system can 
be obtained, because the concrete value of the terms 
is thereby acquired. It will doubtless take many 
years before grammes replace grains in our pre¬ 
scriptions, but this should not deter us from work¬ 
ing assiduously towards the accomplishment of 
;hat object, with the confidence that time will in¬ 
evitably prove the superior merits of the metrical 
system. 
\_The discussion upon this paper is printed at p. 813.] 
