ToVlmberS'}     Review  of  Chemistry  of  the  U.S.P.  505 
never  change  its  name  in  the  vernacular.  Is  arsenic  trioxide  "  thor- 
oughly established"  in  chemistry?  We  say  no;  it  is  a  theoretical 
name.  That  it  contains  arsenic  and  oxygen  none  will  doubt ;  that 
these  are  present  in  a  certain  definite  proportion  is  unquestioned, 
but  the  formula  is  to-day  in  question  ;  new  German  works  are  prone 
to  call  this  arsenic  hexoxide,  next  revision  may  be  modern,  and 
want  the  term  arseni  hexoxidum.  The  danger  that  may  arise  from 
too  many  theorists  composing  a  practical  work  cannot  be  better 
shown  than  by  the  above. 
Changing  of  names  is  a  curse ;  not  only  is  chemistry  blessed  with 
this  curse,  but  other  sciences  also.  Botany  is  in  a  bad  way.  Bota- 
nists have  ruled  unanimously  to  go  back  to  the  oldest  name ;  a  tacit 
acknowledgment  by  these  scientists  that  they  do  not  recognize 
manufacture  of  names  for  named  things  as  botanical  expertness,  or 
a  grand  advancement  in  botany.  The  botanists  do  not  look  upon 
this  with  favor,  as  the  great  herbaria  and  museums  have  directors 
whose  clerks  are  expert  clerks  as  a  rule,  and  they  can  do  the  heavy 
scientific  work  of  bringing  forth  new  names,  you  can  imagine  the 
chaos  the  science  already  was  fast  approaching. 
In  chemistry  we  speak  of  carbon  dioxide  to-day ;  its  predecessor 
was  carbonic  anhydride  and  carbonic  acid  anhydride;  even  before 
this  it  was  known  as  carbonic  acid.  While  these  anhydride  terms 
have  passed  into  innocuous  desuetude,  the  older  term,  carbonic  acid, 
thrives  in  common  life.  To  give  a  named  substance  a  new  name 
every  time  a  little  additional  insignificant  new  fact  has  been  noted, 
is  not  sane  practice.  This  habit  can  never  be  endorsed  by  those 
who  follow.  Even  to-day  it  is  sufficiently  difficult  to  read  books  of 
Liebig's  time.  Probably  these  word-changers  have  never  seen  a 
work  antedating  their  youth,  nor  had  occasion  to  look  up  the  prior 
art  of  a  chemical  manufacture,  or,  if  they  should  try  to  read  up  in 
an  old  book  and  not  understand  the  language,  they  would  say/'  Oh, 
that  is  antiquated." 
The  committee  has  followed  in  the  wake  of  the  British,  Germans 
and  French  in  introducing  synthetics.  While  at  the  time  when 
the  other  pharmacopoeias  admitted  these  products,  it  might  have 
been  considered  a  questionable  procedure,  to-day  it  would  be  folly 
to  refuse  these  agencies  a  place  in  the  U.S.P.  They  have  proved 
their  value  medicinally,  even  if  they  were  encumbered  with  exorbi- 
tant prices  and  clinical  reports  "  made  in  Germany." 
