520  NOMENCLATUEE,  ETC.,  TN  THE  MATERIA  MEDICA,  U.  S.  P. 
Another  source  of  mistakes,  if  our  system  of  nomenclature 
was  generally  followed,  would  be  found  in  the  fact  that  in  differ- 
ent countries  occasionally  two  different  parts  of  two  different 
species  of  the  same  genus  are  employed  medicinally.  If  fruc- 
tus  rubi  idasi  of  continental  Europe  was  officinal  as  Rubus,  the 
syrupus  rubi  of  Europe  would  then  be  totally  different  from  the 
preparation  officinal  with  us  under  that  name. 
For  these  considerations,  the  writer  is  personally  in  favor  of 
designating  by  the  nomenclature  not  only  the  officinal  plant,  but 
likewise  the  part  of  that  plant,  and  moreover  to  give  precedence 
to  the  latter,  by  saying  radix  belladonnge,  folium  aconiti,  fructus 
conii,  semen  stramonii,  &;c. 
While  I  regard  such  a  system  of  nomenclature  as  by  far  pre- 
ferable to  the  one  now  in  use  in  our  Pharmacopoeia,  I  am  not 
prepared  to  advocate  its  adoption  in  the  next  revised  edition, 
but  believe  that  in  consequence  of  the  frequent  intercourse  with 
Europe  the  time  has  arrived,  when  discussions  on  this  subject 
ought  to  be  invited.  The  fact  that  a  new  European  Pharma- 
copoeia, that  of  Austria,  has  adopted  the  system  to  which  we 
still  adhere,  may,  I  judge,  be  merely  regarded  as  an  experiment, 
which  sooner  or  later  will  be  again  abandoned. 
■  Our  Pharmacopoeia  defines  in  a  few  words  the  meaning  of  the 
names  of  the  officinal  drugs  by  stating  the  officinal  part  and  giv- 
ing the  full  botanical  name  of  the  plant.  The  terms  employed 
for  designating  these  officinal  parts  are  in  some  cases  erroneous, 
while  in  others  there  appears  to  be  a  want  of  system,  a  lack 
of  uniformity,  which  would  seem  to  call  for  a  revision  of  these 
terms.  Without  pretending  or  intending  to  exhaust  the  subject, 
I  take  the  liberty  to  point  out  the  most  prominent  of  these 
errors  and  inconsistencies,  and  likewise  to  notice  some  observa- 
tions made  within  the  last  ten  years  which  will  necessitate  a 
change  in  the  wording  of  some  definitions. 
At  the  meeting  of  the  American  Pharmaceutical  Association 
in  1867,  this  subject  incidentally  came  up  for  discussion  with  re- 
gard to  the  terms  root  and  rhizome  as  employed  by  the  pharma- 
copoeia. From  this  discussion  it  would  appear  that  rhizomes 
with  the  attached  rootlets,  the  latter  predominating,  are  called 
roots,  while  the  term  rhizome  designates  either  that  part  alone, 
