/ 
b  a  t  i  e  t  fee  b  , 
On  Perfumery.    By  Septimus  Piesse. 
(Continued  from  page  82.) 
BOQUETS  AND  NOSEGAYS. 
In  the  previous  articles  we  have  endeavored  to  explain  the  mode  of  pre- 
paring the  primitive  perfumes — the  original  odors  of  plants.  It  will  have 
been  observed  that  while  the  majority  can  be  obtained  under  the  form  of 
otto  or  essential  oil,  that  there  are  others  which  hitherto  have  not  been 
isolated,  but  exist  only  in  solution  in  alcohol,  or  in  a  fatty  body.  Of  the 
latter  are  included  all  that  are  most  prized,  with  the  exception  of  otto  of 
rose — that  diamond  among  the  odoriferous  gems.  Practically,  we  have  no 
essential  oils  of  jessamine,  vanilla,  tuberose,  cassie  (blackcurrants),  violets, 
and  others.  What  we  know  of  these  odors  is  derived  from  esprits,  obtained 
from  oils  or  fats,  in  which  the  several  flowers  have  been  repeatedly  infused, 
and  afterwards  infusing  such  fats  or  oils  in  alcohol.  Undoubtedly,  these 
odors  are  the  most  generally  pleasing,  while  those  made  from  the  essential 
oils,  dissolved  in  spirit,  are  of  a  secondary  character.  The  simple  odors, 
when  isolated,  are  called  Essential  Oils,  or  Ottos  ;  when  dissolved  or  ex- 
isting in  solution  in  alcohol,  by  the  English  they  are  termed  Essences,  and 
by  the  French  Extraits,  or  Esprits  ;  a  few  exceptions  prove  this  rule. 
Essential  oil  of  orange  peel,  and  of  lemon  peel,  are  frequently  termed  in 
the  trade  "Essence"  of  orange  and  "Essence"  of  lemons,  instead  of  es- 
sential oil  or  otto  of  lemons,  &c.  The  sooner  the  correct  nomenclature  is 
used  in  perfumery,  as  well  as  in  the  allied  arts,  the  better,  and  the  less 
blunders  will  be  made  in  the  dispensatory.  It  appears  to  the  writer,  that 
if  the  nomenclature  of  these  substances  was  revised,  it  would  be  serviceable  ; 
he  would  suggest,  as  a  significant,  a  brief  and  comprehensive  adjective,  Otto, 
be  used  as  a  prefix  to  denote  that  such  and  such  a  body  was  the  odoriferous 
principle  of  the  plant.  We  should  then  have  otto  of  lavender  instead  of 
essential  oil  of  lavender,  &c,  &c.  Where  there  exists  a  solution  of  an  es- 
sential oil  in  a  fat  oil,  the  necessity  of  some  such  significant  distinction  is 
rendered  obvious,  for  commercially  such  articles  are  still  called  "  oils  " — 
oil  of  jasmin,  oil  of  roses,  &c.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  the  public  will 
use  the  words  "  fat "  oil  and  "  essential  "  oil,  to  distinguish  these  differences 
of  composition. 
There  are  several  good  reasons  why  the  odoriferous  principle  of  plants 
should  not  be  denominated  oils.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  bad  principle  to 
name  any  class  of  substances  with  the  same  signification  as  those  belonging 
to  another.  Surely,  there  are  enough  distinguishing  qualities  in  their  com- 
position, their  physical  character  and  chemical  reaction,  to  warrant  a  sig- 
