214 
BRITISH PHARMACEUTICAL CONFERENCE. 
Mr. E. Bremridgb stated his opinion that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would 
not have been unwilling to grant this boon, but the insuperable diflSculty was that there 
was no register of all persons engaged in the trade. 
% 
ON THE PEOPOSEl) INTEODUCTION OF TWO SYSTEMS OF 
CHEMICAL NOTATION IN THE PHAKMACOPCEIA. 
BY JOHN CARGILL BROUGH. 
In a letter addressed to the Medical Council on the 19th of March, 1866, 
the President and Council of the Chemical Society recommended the total 
exclusion of chemical symbols from the forthcoming edition of the British 
Pharmacopoeia, and suggested that percentage representations of composition 
should be included in the definitions of the few bodies that might seem spe¬ 
cially to require distinctive formulae. The grounds upon w^hich this recom¬ 
mendation was based were thus stated :— 
“ The system of notation at present adopted in the British Pharmacopoeia 
is constructed in conformity with views w^hich are rapidly disappearing from 
chemical teaching in this country. 
“The Pharmacopoeia is necessarily the text-book on which the examina¬ 
tions of students of medicine and pharmacy in pharmaceutical chemistry are 
based. It appears, therefore, extremely desirable that no work shall be put 
forth on official authority, such as that of the Medical Council, which shall 
be at variance with the views propounded by many of the most active experi¬ 
mental leaders and principal teachers of chemical science ; or which shall 
oblige the teacher to adopt a double numerical system in his exposition of 
the facts of chemical science to his pupils,—a course w'hich is always a source 
of embarrassment both to professor and learner.” 
Though this recommendation proceeded from a Council representing the 
scientific chemists of the United Kingdom, and was supported by Dr. Chris- 
tison and Dr. Redwood, the Medical Council, by a majority of eleven against 
eight, carried Dr. Apjohn’s motion :—“ That it be an instruction to the Phar¬ 
macopoeia Committee to give for each therapeutic compound of definite 
constitution, occurring in the forthcoming edition of the Pharmacopoeia, two 
formulae,—the first being that in ordinary use at present, the second being 
one constructed in accordance with the more recent view^s of what is called 
the ‘ unitary ’ system.” 
The forthcoming Pharmacopoeia will therefore contain two sets of symbolic 
iormulae, presenting two phases of chemical science, between which there is 
almost as great a difference as there is between the Ptolemaic and Coper- 
nican systems of astronomy. Having long held the opinion that theoretical 
formulae are inconsistent with the practical character of the Pharmacopoeia, I 
regret the decision of the Medical Council, and venture to assert that its re¬ 
sult w ill be unsatisfactory to students and teachers of pharmaceutical che¬ 
mistry. 
The formulae given in the present British Pharmacopoeia do not accord 
w ith the doctrines of our leading chemists, and are rapidly going out of use. 
They do not represent the system of notation adopted in Watts’s ‘ Dictionary 
of Chemistry,’ Hofmann’s ‘ Modern Chemistry,’ Odling’s ‘ Animal Chemistry,’ 
Williamson’s ‘ Chemistry for Students,’ and every other important chemical 
work that has recently appeared. More than three years ago. Dr. Odling 
publicly expressed his belief that the old formula for water, H O, would never 
