Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  ] 
April,  1875.  J 
Official  and  Officinal, 
167 
which  do  not  as  yet  give  Prof.  Attfield's  definition  of  official.  In  view 
ot  the  very  great  inconveniences  of  changes  in  terminology,  I  question 
the  propriety  of  altering  the  meaning  of  these  words,  unless  it  be  for 
more  cogent  and  convincing  reasons  than  are  urged  in  the  present  case. 
5th.  With  the  most  diligent  inquiry,  I  fail  to  see  any  advantage 
whatsoever  that  is  to  be  derived  from  the  introduction  of  the  new  terms, 
which  certainly  do  not  convey  such  clear  and  definite  ideas  to  the  mind 
as  officinal  and  unofficinal,  the  latter  expressing  positive  negation. 
6th.  I  fail  to  understand  the  necessity  of  obediently  following  every 
change  of  nomenclature  in  chemistry  and  pharmacy  made  in  England, 
as  the  number  of  English  pharmacists  in  this  country  is  insignificant  in 
comparison  to  those  of  other  European  nationalities.  We  have  signi- 
fied our  readiness  to  adopt  disodic  hydric  orthophosphate  and  the  like,  but 
why  this  latest  infliction  ?  In  the  present  case,  Prof.  Attfield  does  not 
appear  to  have  even  succeeded  in  establishing  the  innovation  in  his  own 
country.  Fliickiger  and  Hanbury  in  their  ''Pharmacographia"  seem  stu- 
diously to  avoid  both  words,  constantly  substituting  for  them  some  other 
expression ;  such  as,  it  is  recognized  by  the  Pharmacopoeia,  &c. 
My  conclusion,  is  therefore,  that  the  definitions  of  the  terms  official 
and  officinal,  as  given  above,  are  hypercritical,  uncalled  for  and  unneces- 
sary ;  that  the  introduction  of  official  presents  no  advantage,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  that  it  cannot  fail  to  prove  a  source  of  infinite  trouble,  vexa- 
tious annoyance  and  interminable  confusion. 
Having  submitted  the  above  to  Prof.  Robert  E.  Rogers,  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania,  I  have  been  authorized  to  express  his  entire 
accordance  with  my  views  on  the  subject.  Dr.  Rogers  strongly  depre- 
cates the  introduction  of  official^  denouncing  it  as  a  mere  affectation. 
Prof.  Joseph  Carson,  for  many  years  editor  of  this  Journal,  expressed 
himself  even  more  forcibly  than  Dr.  Rogers.  He  severely  condemns 
the  proposition,  and  protests  against  it. 
As  Mr.  Hans  M.  Wilder  gave  origin  to  the  discussion  of  this  mat- 
ter at  the  last  meeting,  I  have  also  conferred  with  him  concerning  it. 
After  due  deliberation  he  advises  me  that  he  agrees  entirely  with  me  in 
the  uselessness  of  the  change,  stating  that  he  called  attention  to  the 
point  as  a  mere  matter  of  interest.  He  believes  the  definitions  as  given 
in  his  paper  to  be  theoretically  correct,  a  fact  that  I  am  quite  willing  to 
admit,  but  he  regards  the  use  of  the  words  in  that  sense  as  inexpedient 
in  practice. 
Philadelphia,  March  \-7,th,  1875. 
