EDITORIAL. 
379 
not officinal, often obsolete synonyms, which create doubt and cause 
trouble where a proper language would be easily understood. We 
will instance the present case. It appears that the prescription called 
for chloride of mercury, (hydrargyri chloridum,) and the apothecary put 
up bichloride of mercury, (hydrargyri bichloridum.) Now neither of 
these terms are the officinal designations of our own Pharmacopoeia 
for calomel or corrosive sublimate, but they are those of the London 
code. By reference to Graham's and Kane's chemistrys, both 
standard British chemical authorities, he will find corrosive sublimate 
described under the terms chloride of mercury, and calomel as sub-chlo- 
ride of mercury. Without designing in the smallest degree to justify it, 
how easily might these chemical and pharmacopceial names be con- 
founded through a careless inadvertence ? It was in view of the con- 
stant and often necessary changes in chemical nomenclature, as that 
science progresses, that the framers of our Pharmacopoeia adopted a 
language for these important preparations, which no probable change 
in chemical opinions would affect, viz., mild chloride of mercury for 
calomel, and corrosive chloride of mercury for corrosive sublimate. If 
physicians would conscientiously agree to employ the language of 
their national code, and carry it out in practice, we would hear of 
fewer errors of this kind. In Philadelphia, calomel is prescribed 
under the terms, " Hydrargyri chloridum mite," " Hydrargyri chlo- 
ridum," "Hydrargyri proto-chloridum," ''Hydrargyri sub-murias," 
" Hydrargyri murias mitis," " Hydrargyri murias dulcis," Calomelas," 
" Calomelas prreparata," not to speak of the numerous modes of 
abbreviation and the scandalous handwriting in which the prescrip- 
tions are often couched. 
The views of our Boston cotemporary in regard to the entrustment 
of prescriptions to unqualified apprentices and assistants; the neces- 
sity there exists for legal enactments respecting poisons; and the yet 
stronger necessity there is for more attention to the education of phar- 
maceutists; agree perfectly with our own. In the United States, phar- 
macy is virtually unprotected in sight of the laws — is a mere trade or 
business — which any one may practice who has the money to com- 
mence and the assurance to prosecute it with the most meagre smat- 
tering of its language and materials. W T hilst such is the case, how can 
it be expected that young men of ability will pass through a tedious 
course of practice, and study to qualify themselves as competitors to 
a host of pretenders, whilst a large portion of the public make no dis- 
tinction between them save that which arises from a false economy 1 ? 
In fact there are few stores of the hundreds in this city, the reve- 
nues of which are sufficient to pay a qualified assistant as he deserves; 
