June 1, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
983 
The Microscopb in Pharmacy. 
Sir,—With reference to Mr. Pocklington’s article on the 
“ Microscope in Pharmacy,” in which he mentions his recent 
discovery of the fact that ground-nut cake is used as an adul¬ 
terant in coffee, cocoa, etc., I beg to say that this sophisti¬ 
cation was first detected and fully exposed by me in the 
‘Food Journal’ of March last, a matter of priority which I 
think was entitled to some notice at his hands. 
I may mention that, out of the hundreds of samples which 
have come under my observation as analyst to the above 
journal, I have never found this starch in anything but two 
samples of cocoa, w T hich, although bought at different shops, 
emanated, I believe, from the same manufacturers. Its flavour 
when roasted would prevent its being used for coffee to any 
extent, and I am sure the sample of butter referred to by 
Mr. Pocklington as containing both Arachis hypogea and 
brains is an exceedingly exceptional case; good mutton and 
beef fat being much more easily obtainable and better suited 
in every way to the views of the butter makers than either of 
these rare adulterants. 
John Muter, Ph.D., F.C.S. 
231, Kenxington Hoad, S.E., 
18 th May, 1872. 
*** For the satisfaction of Dr. Muter the above letter has 
been submitted to the author of the article in question, who 
has forwarded to us the following reply :— 
“ I have much pleasure in admitting Dr. Muter’s claim to 
priority in exposing the use of Aracliis hypogeaxn adulteration 
of cocoa, etc. My omission to ascribe “honour to whom 
honour is due ” may be explained by the fact that I had not 
read the article in ‘Food Journal,’ to which Dr. Muter 
alludes, at the time I wrote the article in which I refer to the 
use of Arachis. As Dr. Muter is aware, independent dis¬ 
coveries and rediscoveries are not only possible but exceed- 
ingly probable in work of this description, where we have to 
deal with facts of tolerably easy observation.—H. P.” 
Chemists and Druggists’ Entrance Fees. 
Sir,—I was glad to notice that Mr. Yizer brought the above 
subject before the Annual Meeting. I have always held that 
it was very impolitic on the part of the Council to demand 
them, and unjust to the body of chemists and druggists. We 
are told, however, that as outsiders we have done nothing for 
the benefit of the Society, and therefore it is only right and 
fair we should pay a fee for the privilege of becoming a mem¬ 
ber. My object in writing this letter is to inquire what is 
the privilege in connection with the Society that calls for two 
guineas ? It can’t be the Journal; that I read regularly and 
can borrow at any time. Perhaps some of your readers that 
have paid the fees can enlighten my understanding on this 
point, because I am quite willing to become a member and 
should have joined two or threeyearsago but for thisfee barring 
the entrance. And whatever privileges belong to member¬ 
ship, I have always held—right or wrong—that a chemist 
and druggist on the other hand confers a benefit on the So¬ 
ciety upon becoming a member. Mr. Yizer clearly proves 
this in his remarks,and I trust the entrance fees will be swept 
away altogether. R. B. 
Halifax. 
We trust some of our readers will respond to this 
inquiry, and in deference to our correspondent’s desire that 
they should do so we abstain at present from saying any¬ 
thing more than to suggest that the question of cui bono 
should not be considered merely in regard to direct indivi¬ 
dual advantage.—[Ed. Pn. Journ.] 
Sir,—Love of fair play impels us to address a few words to 
you in reference to a suggestion advanced at the Annual 
General Meeting, viz., to raise the Minor examination fee 
to eight guineas. 
We should like to know of the gentlemen who so zea¬ 
lously desire to “clap it on ” to the already sufficiently em¬ 
barrassing impediments between the poor assistants and the 
inevitable examinations,—are our supervisors prepared for 
their part to “clap on” a compensating increase on the 
salaries they offer ; or do they expect to raise the status—or 
rather compel the assistants to raise for themselves their 
degree of qualification, “ including analysis, toxicology, and 
so forth,” and yet continue to offer such scandalous salaries 
ns appear unblushingly in the advertisement columns of the 
Journal, - for instance, £20 to £25 (in the number for May 4th). 
It is no refutation of this to say that there are some, and 
there are we know, honourable exceptions. “ Too many want 
the pudding without paying for it,” as Mr. Humpage said. 
M e speak feelingly on behalf of those who will have to 
encounter what we have passed through; and perhaps it wa 3 
the same cause produced the contrary effect on the gentle¬ 
man who advocates that severity on the “Minors ” that will 
no longer affect him, and the abolition of members’ sub¬ 
scriptions that perhaps would affect him, more agreeably. 
Anyhow we tail to see the logic of his arguments. Tho 
humble “Minor,” with his notoriously pitiful “screw,” is to 
be mulcted of nearly treble the presant fee, whilst “ those 
alone who have the extra abilities (?) and ambition”—the 
Majors, who mostly go in for the title with the view of using 
it in business on their own account—their “ honorary title ” 
is to be made “ more valuable and appreciated” by abolishing 
fees; or making them life members for five guineas ! 
Now in our humble judgment, if any alteration is needed 
to encourage the ambitious and at the same time deter the 
incompetent, some such plan as this would be far more 
equitable and efficacious. 
Let the successful (and therefore presumably deserving) 
candidates have returned to them the greater portion of their 
fees, say two-thirds, while as to the too ambitious and un¬ 
prepared ones, who give the examiners most trouble, let 
them lose more than at present, say proportionate to their 
deficiency as shown by their marks. On this simple principle 
might be adjusted a sliding scale of reward for merit, and at 
the same time a salutary detergent to warn off “ those who 
are not so fully qualified as they should be.” Not to take up 
more space that may be better occupied, we remain, 
J. P. C.) 
J. S. > A Minor Triumvirate. 
A. J. T.) 
24, Methley Street, S.TF. 
Pharmaceutical Curiosities. 
Sir,—I live a very few miles from London, just on the 
borders of Buckinghamshire, and have been often struck with 
the “peculiar” knowledge that is required to supply the 
wants and requests of the “chaw-bacon” population about 
here. 
I have had applications for “ sollofolossity ” (I write it a3 
pronounced), and because I at first hesitated, and failed to 
catch the meaning of the strange sound, I was looked upon 
as profoundly ignorant of the first principles of “yokel” 
materia medica. 
I have been asked for “karplumb,” of which to this day I 
remain in hopeless ignorance; “blood markery,” “gum 
cotcheter,” “skivender leaves.” By way of helping me, I 
asked what the latter were for, and was informed for “ lap- 
puts of the jints.” Not being sufficiently informed with 
regard to “lapputs,” I was unable to supply my customer, 
but dare say he got“ skivender leaves” lower down or higher 
up, for there are a great many “shining lights” in our 
street. 
1 had a somewhat obscure prescription from one of our 
rural physicians the other day, and will enclose it for your 
perusal. I question if you or our respected London exami¬ 
ners could translate it, so have written our interpretation 
underneath. 
2 p of blodsom peaive. (2d. balsam of capivi.) 
2 p of grans of blood. (2d. of dragon’s blood.) 
2 p of rotan apal. (2d. bitter apple. Written above rotten 
apple.) 
2 p of sweet niter. (2d. sweet nitre.) 
I could write a very curious dictionary of synonyms, but 
you have had a full dose now, and it is the kind of stuff to bo 
administered only pro re natd; but if agreeable you may 
have the dose repeated at a moderate interval. 
JJxbridgc, 3Iarch 26th, 1872. Flint. 
Sir,—Thinking that some of my brethren in the trade may 
feel somewhat interested and amused at the strange com¬ 
pounds in use by our ancestors, I send an extract from an 
old pharmacopoeia of 1693, entitled Pharmacopoeia Bateana. 
The contrast of the two P. B.’s (past and present) is 
rather striking. The following is a formula for preparing 
Yinum Ecphracticum ; a wine opening obstructions :— 
