The British pharmacopœia / published under the direction of the General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom, pursuant to the Medical Act (1858).

Date:
1885
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The British pharmacopœia / published under the direction of the General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom, pursuant to the Medical Act (1858). Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    20/574
    use, and the other more recently introduced. Important changes in these respects are now occurring, and the symboKc notation of the British Pharmacopoeia of 1864, although still recognised in several of the schools and various elementary v^orks on chemistry, has ceased to be used by some of the most eminent chemists in this country. It was represented to the Council, on high chemical authority, that, under such circumstances, sjmholic formulas might with advantage be omitted from the Pharmacopoeia, and other means adopted for defining what is known of the composition of the substances referred to. The Council, however, did not think it ex- pedient to relinquish the use of such formulce, or to pro- nounce, directly or by implication, an opinion upon the comparative merits of the two systems referred to, but determined to represent chemical substances of definite chemical constitution both by the old and also by the new method of notation. In all cases, therefore, where chemical symbols are used, two formulce are given, one according to the old, and the other according to the new system. These are distinguished from each other by the use of different types, the formulce according to the old system being printed in the lighter Eomantype (Al), and those according to the new system in the heavier Egyptian type (Al). In the use of names to designate medicines, the Council have endeavoured to adopt such as, with a due regard to conciseness, are most explicit and most likely to be understood, while at the same time they do not un- necessarily involve scientific theories that are liable to change, and are not likely, when employed in prescrip- 4