234 
Botanical  Nomenclature. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
Ztfay,  1898. 
in  general,  that  they  require  more  time,  attention  and  apparatus 
than  titration  methods,  and  that  the  results  obtained  by  them  can- 
not be  expected  to  approach  the  latter  in  accuracy,  unless  suitable 
corrections,  requiring  tedious  calculations,  are  made  for  variation  in 
temperature  and  atmospheric  pressure  at  least. 
The  work  described  in  this  paper  was  undertaken  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  Dr.  Charles  Rice,  and  the  writer  wishes  to  acknowledge  valu- 
able advice  received  from  Dr.  Rice  as  also  from  Prof.  Coblentz. 
Pharmaceutical  Laboratory  of  the 
New  York  College  of  Pharmacy,  March,  1898. 
NOTE  ON  BOTANICAL  NOMENCLATURE. 
By  John  Uri  Li<oyd,  Ph.M.,  Ph.D. 
In  the  minutes  of  the  Pharmaceutical  Meeting  for  March,  I  notice 
that  Professor  Kraemer  prefers  "the  common  names  of  plants  as 
being  less  confusing." 
While  that  brief  note  cannot  give  the  breadth  of  the  subject 
under  discussion,  and  is  liable  to  misinterpretation,  still  I  feel  it  to 
be  a  duty  for  me  to  give  my  experience  in  a  commercial  way  with 
some  of  these  plant  names.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  more  a  duty  since 
both  my  brother,  Curtis,  and  myself  once  strenuously  advocated 
the  use  of  botanical  names  only,  having  gone  so  far  as,  in  print,  to 
criticise  the  use  of  common  names  by  physicians  and  pharmacists. 
But  subsequent  experience,  that  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  record  in 
detail,  made  it  necessary  for  us  not  only  to  acquiesce  in  the  use  of 
certain  common  names,  but  to  publicly  advocate  them,  and  in  prices 
current  wherein  all  the  botanical  remedies  used  in  medicine  are 
named,  we  years  ago  excluded  from  the  list  the  botanical  names  of 
certain  remedies,  referring  to  them  only  in  notes.  In  this  con- 
nection the  Euphorbias  and  Eupatoriums  may  be  cited  as  examples, 
experience  having  shown  that  physicians  and  pharmacists  alike 
have  less  trouble  in  distinguishing  their  common  names  than  carry, 
ing  the  botanical  distinctions.  But  there  must  be  a  discriminating 
selection  of  common  names,  for  the  use  of  such  common  names  as 
Indian  Hemp,  Willow  Herb,  etc.,  is  to  be  deplored,  since  they  in 
turn  create  confusion. 
The  result  of  this  experience  may  be  of  use  to  others,  and  I, 
