Am.  Jour.  Pharm, 
Jan.,  1894. 
Pharmacopoeial  Nomenclature. 
29 
atic  one,  to  give  the  former  the  preference.  By  this  means  the 
classification  was  simplified  in  such  cases  where  officinal  parts  of 
plants  were  derived  from  various  species  of  the  same  natural  order, 
as,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  Artemisia  (A.  Absinthium,  A.  Abro- 
tanum,  A.  vulgaris,  A.  Dracunculus).  Later  on,  however,  this  rule 
fell  into  disuse  again,  preference  being  given  to  the  old-established 
custom  of  grouping  according  to  Flores,  Herbae,  Radices,  etc.,  until 
in  more  recent  times  these  groups  were  again  subdivided  upon  a 
scientific  basis  (the  flowers  into  flores  and  petala,  the  herbs  into 
folia,  herbce,  and  summitates,  the  roots  into  radix,  rhizoma,  bulbus, 
and  tuber),  and  the  various  parts  of  plants  were  again  very  much 
scattered  in  the  alphabet  of  the  Pharmacopoeia.  This  fact  would 
justify  the  re-adoption  of  that  first-named  rule,  providing  the  utmost 
care  is  taken  not  to  give  too  great  a  generalization  and  thereby 
complicate  matters,  especially  for  the  physician,  who  is  rarely 
thoroughly  at  home  in  the  field  of  systematic  botany;  indeed, 
there  are  cases  where  the  pharmacist  would  not  know  for  the 
instant,  what  to  look  for  under  the  title  Acacia,  or  Geum,  or  Ery- 
throxylon,  etc. 
I,  therefore,  take  the  liberty  again  to  call  attention  to  the  above- 
named  principle,  suggested  by  Link,  and  to  speak  in  favor  of  using 
for  a  title,  wherever  possible,  the  official  botanical  name,  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  systematic  one,  where  they  differ  from  one  another.  For 
instance  : 
Caryophyllata  in  place  of  Geum. 
Coca  in  place  of  Erythroxylon. 
Nux  vomica  in  place  of  Strychnos. 
Ratanhia  in  place  of  Krameria. 
Pichurim  in  place  of  Nectandra. 
This  would  apply  also  to  Ammoniacum,  Galbanum,  Asafcetida, 
Myrrha,  etc. 
Then  would  Gummi  Arabicum  again  appear  under  its  proper 
title  and  not  under  the  title  Acacia,  for  which,  at  the  best,  no  future 
can  be  prophesied  ;  to  accord  with  this,  Tragacantha  should  have 
been  entered  as  Astragalus.  My  experience  indicates  that  the 
hope  to  bring  such  new  expressions  as  Mucilago  Acacice  into  prac- 
tical use  is  vain  ;  for,  although  the  young  physicians  trained  in  the 
universities  have  their  attention  directed  to  the  new  and  legally 
introduced  names,  they  speedily  forget  them  in  the  intercourse  with 
