EDITORIAL.

{252}EDITORIAL.THECONVENTION.—We cheerfully give place to the followingnoticefrom Dr. Guthrie, in regard to the approaching meeting of the Pharmaceutical Convention. We regret to learn that the time appointed, is not the most convenient one for many of the delegates whom we may expect from the south. It is too late, however, to change the time of meeting, were there any authority by which such change could be made. In view of the importance of the object, we hope that there may be a full attendance on the part of the delegates, even at the cost of some personal sacrifice. If the whole country be represented, a time can then be chosen for a future meeting which will suit a majority of those present:—“NOTICE.—The Annual Meeting of the U. S. Pharmaceutical Convention, will take place in Philadelphia, on Wednesday, the 6th of October next.It being a matter of much importance that this meeting should number as many of our Druggists and Chemists as possible, I deem it proper to suggest that not only all regularly incorporated and unincorporated associations of this kind should see that they are fully represented, but that where no associations exist as yet, the apothecaries should send one or more of their number as delegates to the convention,—such will, no doubt, be cheerfully admitted to seats in the convention.This meeting it is to be hoped, will either take the necessary steps to the formation of a regular and permanent national organization, or possibly effect such organization during its sittings.We trust all who feel an interest in this important subject, will remember the time and place, and give us their assistance in person or by delegate.C. B.GUTHRIE,President of Convention.”THEAMERICANJOURNALOFPHARMACY.—The editor of the American Journal of Pharmacy, has done much to raise the standard of American Pharmacy. He has a solid reputation founded on large knowledge and great industry. It is with pleasure then that we observe the attention he bestows upon our Journal. He has taken, however, rather an unusual course, in animadverting separately upon most of the directly practical articles that have appeared in our pages, and his criticisms have given rise to some reclamations on the part of our contributors, which we subjoin:—COMMENTSON“COMMENTS.”—The American Journal of Pharmacy (Philadelphia), for July, contains “Pharmaceutical notices, being extracts from various articles in the New York Journal of Pharmacy, with comments by the editor,” in which{253}our friend Procter, criticises, rather severely, some of the pharmaceutical formulæ and suggestions that have been offered in this Journal. With full respect for the great acquirements and high character as a practical pharmaceutist, to which my friend Procter is justly entitled, I should have been glad if the articles, upon which he comments, had met his approval; and I know of no one that I would rather should set me right, if anything that I have offered does not find acceptance with him. With the greater part of his comments, I do not think there is occasion for controversy,—matters of fact readers can judge for themselves, and it certainly is of little consequence, who may be found in error, compared with the elucidation of truth.In respect to theconsistenceof Syrup of Gum Arabic, he is probably nearer right, (during this hot weather, at any rate) than I was, and still, I think he is not right. My experience with the present officinal formula, had been in the cold season, when I found the syrup decidedly too thick for convenient use, especially by itself; a large proportion of it crystallized in the temperature of the shop, and the mouth and neck of the bottle choked up with candied syrup every two or three times it was used. I had found the former syrup to answer very well in regard to consistence and flavor, though, it certainly could not be considered permanent; it had to be made in small quantities and frequently; indeed, I do not suppose that any liquid combination of gum, sugar and water only, can be made of a permanent character. Since reading Mr. Procter’s comments, I have made this syrup again by the present formula, and it does keep decidedly better at this season, than that made in the other proportions, yet not perfectly; and there is considerable crystallization, even in the very hot weather we have had lately. I infer that syrup which crystallizes at this season, has an excess of sugar in it, the crystals formed tending further to reduce the remaining syrup, and thus sooner promote acidity than if a proportion of sugar had been used which could remain in solution. Perhaps, a medium between the two formulæ could be hit upon, in which the proper balance might be better attained.In the formula offered for Compound Syrup of Squill, in our Journal for April, there is an error of four ounces in the quantity of honey, which should have beentwenty-twoounces. Whether it was made by the printer or not cannot be ascertained, as “thecopyhas been destroyed.” I had not noticed it until my attention was called to it by Mr. Procter’s comments. The quantity of sugar used by me in making this syrup was, for convenience, one pound avoirdupois weight; that of honey, one pound and a half, same weight. In transcribing the formula for a medical Journal, I thought I must, per custom, render it in troy weights; so as15 oz.troy are 200 grs. more than one pound av., I set down15 oz.,and intended to set down22 oz.of honey, as being only 60 grs. more than one pound and a half av. I think this addition of4 oz.of honey will make the whole come up to Mr. Procter’s measure of “56 fluid ounces before the ebullition,” &c., and a little over. The boiling can be continued only for a few minutes. I was formerly in the practice of boiling to three pints, and adding 48 grs. tartar emetic, but finding that I had to evaporate more than half a pint, and judging that{254}the strength of the resulting preparation was rather lessened than increased thereby, I concluded to stop at three and a half pints. As to the proportion of sugar and honey, they amount together to21⁄2pounds av., which with two pints of an evaporated menstruum, containing the extractive matter soluble in diluted alcohol of8 oz.of the roots, furnishes a syrup of good consistence. It may be observed, that solution of sugar in a menstruum so charged, is quite different from that in water. Perhaps, however, an equal amount of sugar with that of the honey, would be preferable. I can only say, that I employed the same quantity a number of times, but reduced it several years since, because it appeared to be too much for some reason, the particulars of which I do not recollect. And as this formula has always given me a satisfactory preparation, I have thought no more about it, until now. Or perhaps, it would be better to continue the evaporation to three pints, with the advantage of producing a more symmetrical result, corresponding, at the same time, with the quantity of the Pharmacopœia. But, is not the officinal formula “almost as far out of the way” theotherway? Forty-two oz. of sugar in forty-eight fluid oz. of syrup! Can such an amount remain in solution twenty-four hours at any ordinary temperature? If mine is an “anomaly,” is not this animpossibility, “in point of consistence”? In reference to the alcoholic objection, it may be remarked, that the evaporation in the case commented upon, is not “from 4 pints of tincture to 2 pints,” but from43⁄4pints to 2 pints. The small portion of alcohol, that may remain after this evaporation and the continued heat to the end of the process, can scarcely be of serious consequence in the doses in which it is prescribed; it may have some influence in preserving the syrup, and also in promoting its medical action. Be all this as it may, so far as taste is a criterion, this preparation appears to be of at least double strength in the qualities of both roots, of the officinal syrup carefully made by the second process given,—the first being, as I suppose, with all apothecaries of the present day, “an obsolete idea.”G. D. C.REMARKSONTHECOMMENTSMADEBYTHEEDITOROFTHEPHILADELPHIAJOURNALOFPHARMACY,ONSOMEEXTRACTSFROMVARIOUSORIGINALARTICLES,PUBLISHEDINTHENEWYORKJOURNALOFPHARMACY:—After giving the formula for preparing Stramonium Ointment, as modified by E. Dupuy, the editor of our contemporary adds, “the objection to the officinal formula on the score of color, is hardly valid, and if it was so, it would be better to color it with extract of grass, than to substitute a preparation which will constantly vary in strength and appearance or with the age of the leaves. The officinal extract of stramonium, is easily incorporated with lard, and produces a brown colored ointment of comparatively uniform strength.” We do not pretend to have furnished a formula vastly superior to that received in our officinal guide. But as we were writing for our locality chiefly, and knowing the general expectation{255}and usage of furnishing stramonium ointment of a green color, we have given a formula which does furnish an ointment having a proper strength, requisite color, without the loss of time and material necessarily incurred in manufacturing a color ad hoc as suggested by W. Procter, Jr., which from the contamination of the decomposed chlorophylle of the extract, would never compare favorably (notwithstanding all that useless waste of trouble,) so far as its appearance is concerned, with the far readier mode proposed for transforming at once by a few short manipulations the dry stramonium into an alcoholic extract and ointment without liability to alteration during the process. Respecting the keeping of both ointments, we can affirm that the one prepared by the modified formula, will keep as well if not better and longer, than the other, and as the color is a point of some importance for our public and practitioners, we are satisfied that it will be preferred on the score of economy of time as well as for its color, which is desirable at least within our circle of custom.EMPLASTRUMEPISPASTICUMWITHCAMPHORANDACETICACID.—Mr. Procter, objects to the addition of acetic acid to the officinal blistering cerate, and seems to smile at the idea of fixing by it the volatile principle of the cantharis, which, by the way, he gratuitously makes the author to say is a neutral substance, when he says not a word about it. He quotes the authority of Mr. Redwood, who in the Pharmaceutical Journal, October, 1841, speaks of acetic acid as not being a good solvent for cantharidine. The reason is, in all probability, from the fact of his using the London standard strength, which is but 1.48. For Messrs. Lavini and Sobrero, (Memoire lu a l’academie des sciences de Turin, 9 Mars, 1845,) state that “concentrated acetic acid,, dissolves cantharidine, but more readily under the influence of heat.” Respecting the volatility of cantharidine, these same chemists have stated in the same paper “that while manipulating with but 52 grammes of flies, for the researches they were making on cantharidine, one of them suffered from blisters produced on the face and lips, by the emanations from these insects.” Besides their authority, Soubeiran, in his Traite de Pharmacie, and Dorvault in the Officine, both state that cantharidine is a very volatile substance, even at ordinary temperature, and if that is, as it appears to be, the ease, what reliable information have we that only 1-30th of a grain was volatilized in the experiment mentioned by W. Procter, Jr., made with 100 grs. of powdered cantharides? Is it not very probable, that in removing the hygrometric water, much more was lost?Whatever may be the changes which take place by the addition of acetic acid in a concentrated state, it is a fact, proved by experience, that the blistering plaster thus prepared, keeps better—that is, retains its power longer than the officinal one even exposed to the air in thin layers. As an example of the stability of this combination, we haveBrown’s Cantharidinewhich, to all appearance, is made from an etherial extract of cantharides additioned with concentrated acetic acid and incorporated in melted wax. We find such a mixture, although spread on paper and but imperfectly protected from the air, retaining for a long period its vesicating properties. Is this advantage produced by a simple acid{256}saponification of the cerate, without reaction on the active principle, but that of protecting it from atmospheric influences? We think it probable that there is a modification taking place, both on the cantharis and other components of the cerate.E. D.THERICHMONDPHARMACEUTICALSOCIETY.—A large number of the Druggists and Apothecaries of the city of Richmond, held a meeting on the 11th of June for the purpose of forming a Pharmaceutical Society, and, having appointed a committee to draft a constitution and bye-laws, and to report to an adjourned meeting, on the 28th of the same month, assembled on that day, and adopted the constitution and bye-laws reported by the committee. The election of officers was postponed until the 6th of July.At a full meeting of those who had signed the constitution, the following gentlemen were elected officers of the society, for the next twelve months, viz:—President,ALEXANDERDUVAL.1st Vice President,JAMESP.PURCELL.2nd Vice President,J. B.WOOD.Recording Secretary,CHAS.MILLSPAUGH.Corresponding Secretary,S. M.ZACHRISSON.Treasurer,W. S.BEERS.Librarian,JOHNT.GRAY.After which, several nominations for members and associate members having been made, the society adjourned to Monday, 13th instant, that the President might, during the recess, appoint the standing committees, as required by the constitution.The Society having assembled on the 13th instant, the following committees were reported:—Committee on Admission—J. Bum, John T. Gray, E. J. Pecot.Committee on Pharmaceutical Ethics—O. A. Strecker, S. W. Zachrisson, A. Bodeker.Committee of Finance—Peyton Johnston, Benjamin F. Ladd, Edward McCarthy.Committee on Library—Andrew Leslie, James P. Purcell, William M. Dade.Executive Committee—John Purcell, W. S. Bum, R. R. Duval:—After which, several nominations were made. Appropriations were placed at the disposal of the library committee for subscriptions to various periodicals, and for the purchase of books, after which, the meeting adjourned.

{252}

THECONVENTION.—We cheerfully give place to the followingnoticefrom Dr. Guthrie, in regard to the approaching meeting of the Pharmaceutical Convention. We regret to learn that the time appointed, is not the most convenient one for many of the delegates whom we may expect from the south. It is too late, however, to change the time of meeting, were there any authority by which such change could be made. In view of the importance of the object, we hope that there may be a full attendance on the part of the delegates, even at the cost of some personal sacrifice. If the whole country be represented, a time can then be chosen for a future meeting which will suit a majority of those present:—

“NOTICE.—The Annual Meeting of the U. S. Pharmaceutical Convention, will take place in Philadelphia, on Wednesday, the 6th of October next.It being a matter of much importance that this meeting should number as many of our Druggists and Chemists as possible, I deem it proper to suggest that not only all regularly incorporated and unincorporated associations of this kind should see that they are fully represented, but that where no associations exist as yet, the apothecaries should send one or more of their number as delegates to the convention,—such will, no doubt, be cheerfully admitted to seats in the convention.This meeting it is to be hoped, will either take the necessary steps to the formation of a regular and permanent national organization, or possibly effect such organization during its sittings.We trust all who feel an interest in this important subject, will remember the time and place, and give us their assistance in person or by delegate.C. B.GUTHRIE,President of Convention.”

“NOTICE.—The Annual Meeting of the U. S. Pharmaceutical Convention, will take place in Philadelphia, on Wednesday, the 6th of October next.

It being a matter of much importance that this meeting should number as many of our Druggists and Chemists as possible, I deem it proper to suggest that not only all regularly incorporated and unincorporated associations of this kind should see that they are fully represented, but that where no associations exist as yet, the apothecaries should send one or more of their number as delegates to the convention,—such will, no doubt, be cheerfully admitted to seats in the convention.

This meeting it is to be hoped, will either take the necessary steps to the formation of a regular and permanent national organization, or possibly effect such organization during its sittings.

We trust all who feel an interest in this important subject, will remember the time and place, and give us their assistance in person or by delegate.C. B.GUTHRIE,President of Convention.”

We trust all who feel an interest in this important subject, will remember the time and place, and give us their assistance in person or by delegate.

C. B.GUTHRIE,President of Convention.”

THEAMERICANJOURNALOFPHARMACY.—The editor of the American Journal of Pharmacy, has done much to raise the standard of American Pharmacy. He has a solid reputation founded on large knowledge and great industry. It is with pleasure then that we observe the attention he bestows upon our Journal. He has taken, however, rather an unusual course, in animadverting separately upon most of the directly practical articles that have appeared in our pages, and his criticisms have given rise to some reclamations on the part of our contributors, which we subjoin:—

COMMENTSON“COMMENTS.”—The American Journal of Pharmacy (Philadelphia), for July, contains “Pharmaceutical notices, being extracts from various articles in the New York Journal of Pharmacy, with comments by the editor,” in which{253}our friend Procter, criticises, rather severely, some of the pharmaceutical formulæ and suggestions that have been offered in this Journal. With full respect for the great acquirements and high character as a practical pharmaceutist, to which my friend Procter is justly entitled, I should have been glad if the articles, upon which he comments, had met his approval; and I know of no one that I would rather should set me right, if anything that I have offered does not find acceptance with him. With the greater part of his comments, I do not think there is occasion for controversy,—matters of fact readers can judge for themselves, and it certainly is of little consequence, who may be found in error, compared with the elucidation of truth.In respect to theconsistenceof Syrup of Gum Arabic, he is probably nearer right, (during this hot weather, at any rate) than I was, and still, I think he is not right. My experience with the present officinal formula, had been in the cold season, when I found the syrup decidedly too thick for convenient use, especially by itself; a large proportion of it crystallized in the temperature of the shop, and the mouth and neck of the bottle choked up with candied syrup every two or three times it was used. I had found the former syrup to answer very well in regard to consistence and flavor, though, it certainly could not be considered permanent; it had to be made in small quantities and frequently; indeed, I do not suppose that any liquid combination of gum, sugar and water only, can be made of a permanent character. Since reading Mr. Procter’s comments, I have made this syrup again by the present formula, and it does keep decidedly better at this season, than that made in the other proportions, yet not perfectly; and there is considerable crystallization, even in the very hot weather we have had lately. I infer that syrup which crystallizes at this season, has an excess of sugar in it, the crystals formed tending further to reduce the remaining syrup, and thus sooner promote acidity than if a proportion of sugar had been used which could remain in solution. Perhaps, a medium between the two formulæ could be hit upon, in which the proper balance might be better attained.In the formula offered for Compound Syrup of Squill, in our Journal for April, there is an error of four ounces in the quantity of honey, which should have beentwenty-twoounces. Whether it was made by the printer or not cannot be ascertained, as “thecopyhas been destroyed.” I had not noticed it until my attention was called to it by Mr. Procter’s comments. The quantity of sugar used by me in making this syrup was, for convenience, one pound avoirdupois weight; that of honey, one pound and a half, same weight. In transcribing the formula for a medical Journal, I thought I must, per custom, render it in troy weights; so as15 oz.troy are 200 grs. more than one pound av., I set down15 oz.,and intended to set down22 oz.of honey, as being only 60 grs. more than one pound and a half av. I think this addition of4 oz.of honey will make the whole come up to Mr. Procter’s measure of “56 fluid ounces before the ebullition,” &c., and a little over. The boiling can be continued only for a few minutes. I was formerly in the practice of boiling to three pints, and adding 48 grs. tartar emetic, but finding that I had to evaporate more than half a pint, and judging that{254}the strength of the resulting preparation was rather lessened than increased thereby, I concluded to stop at three and a half pints. As to the proportion of sugar and honey, they amount together to21⁄2pounds av., which with two pints of an evaporated menstruum, containing the extractive matter soluble in diluted alcohol of8 oz.of the roots, furnishes a syrup of good consistence. It may be observed, that solution of sugar in a menstruum so charged, is quite different from that in water. Perhaps, however, an equal amount of sugar with that of the honey, would be preferable. I can only say, that I employed the same quantity a number of times, but reduced it several years since, because it appeared to be too much for some reason, the particulars of which I do not recollect. And as this formula has always given me a satisfactory preparation, I have thought no more about it, until now. Or perhaps, it would be better to continue the evaporation to three pints, with the advantage of producing a more symmetrical result, corresponding, at the same time, with the quantity of the Pharmacopœia. But, is not the officinal formula “almost as far out of the way” theotherway? Forty-two oz. of sugar in forty-eight fluid oz. of syrup! Can such an amount remain in solution twenty-four hours at any ordinary temperature? If mine is an “anomaly,” is not this animpossibility, “in point of consistence”? In reference to the alcoholic objection, it may be remarked, that the evaporation in the case commented upon, is not “from 4 pints of tincture to 2 pints,” but from43⁄4pints to 2 pints. The small portion of alcohol, that may remain after this evaporation and the continued heat to the end of the process, can scarcely be of serious consequence in the doses in which it is prescribed; it may have some influence in preserving the syrup, and also in promoting its medical action. Be all this as it may, so far as taste is a criterion, this preparation appears to be of at least double strength in the qualities of both roots, of the officinal syrup carefully made by the second process given,—the first being, as I suppose, with all apothecaries of the present day, “an obsolete idea.”G. D. C.

In respect to theconsistenceof Syrup of Gum Arabic, he is probably nearer right, (during this hot weather, at any rate) than I was, and still, I think he is not right. My experience with the present officinal formula, had been in the cold season, when I found the syrup decidedly too thick for convenient use, especially by itself; a large proportion of it crystallized in the temperature of the shop, and the mouth and neck of the bottle choked up with candied syrup every two or three times it was used. I had found the former syrup to answer very well in regard to consistence and flavor, though, it certainly could not be considered permanent; it had to be made in small quantities and frequently; indeed, I do not suppose that any liquid combination of gum, sugar and water only, can be made of a permanent character. Since reading Mr. Procter’s comments, I have made this syrup again by the present formula, and it does keep decidedly better at this season, than that made in the other proportions, yet not perfectly; and there is considerable crystallization, even in the very hot weather we have had lately. I infer that syrup which crystallizes at this season, has an excess of sugar in it, the crystals formed tending further to reduce the remaining syrup, and thus sooner promote acidity than if a proportion of sugar had been used which could remain in solution. Perhaps, a medium between the two formulæ could be hit upon, in which the proper balance might be better attained.

In the formula offered for Compound Syrup of Squill, in our Journal for April, there is an error of four ounces in the quantity of honey, which should have beentwenty-twoounces. Whether it was made by the printer or not cannot be ascertained, as “thecopyhas been destroyed.” I had not noticed it until my attention was called to it by Mr. Procter’s comments. The quantity of sugar used by me in making this syrup was, for convenience, one pound avoirdupois weight; that of honey, one pound and a half, same weight. In transcribing the formula for a medical Journal, I thought I must, per custom, render it in troy weights; so as15 oz.troy are 200 grs. more than one pound av., I set down15 oz.,and intended to set down22 oz.of honey, as being only 60 grs. more than one pound and a half av. I think this addition of4 oz.of honey will make the whole come up to Mr. Procter’s measure of “56 fluid ounces before the ebullition,” &c., and a little over. The boiling can be continued only for a few minutes. I was formerly in the practice of boiling to three pints, and adding 48 grs. tartar emetic, but finding that I had to evaporate more than half a pint, and judging that{254}the strength of the resulting preparation was rather lessened than increased thereby, I concluded to stop at three and a half pints. As to the proportion of sugar and honey, they amount together to21⁄2pounds av., which with two pints of an evaporated menstruum, containing the extractive matter soluble in diluted alcohol of8 oz.of the roots, furnishes a syrup of good consistence. It may be observed, that solution of sugar in a menstruum so charged, is quite different from that in water. Perhaps, however, an equal amount of sugar with that of the honey, would be preferable. I can only say, that I employed the same quantity a number of times, but reduced it several years since, because it appeared to be too much for some reason, the particulars of which I do not recollect. And as this formula has always given me a satisfactory preparation, I have thought no more about it, until now. Or perhaps, it would be better to continue the evaporation to three pints, with the advantage of producing a more symmetrical result, corresponding, at the same time, with the quantity of the Pharmacopœia. But, is not the officinal formula “almost as far out of the way” theotherway? Forty-two oz. of sugar in forty-eight fluid oz. of syrup! Can such an amount remain in solution twenty-four hours at any ordinary temperature? If mine is an “anomaly,” is not this animpossibility, “in point of consistence”? In reference to the alcoholic objection, it may be remarked, that the evaporation in the case commented upon, is not “from 4 pints of tincture to 2 pints,” but from43⁄4pints to 2 pints. The small portion of alcohol, that may remain after this evaporation and the continued heat to the end of the process, can scarcely be of serious consequence in the doses in which it is prescribed; it may have some influence in preserving the syrup, and also in promoting its medical action. Be all this as it may, so far as taste is a criterion, this preparation appears to be of at least double strength in the qualities of both roots, of the officinal syrup carefully made by the second process given,—the first being, as I suppose, with all apothecaries of the present day, “an obsolete idea.”

G. D. C.

REMARKSONTHECOMMENTSMADEBYTHEEDITOROFTHEPHILADELPHIAJOURNALOFPHARMACY,ONSOMEEXTRACTSFROMVARIOUSORIGINALARTICLES,PUBLISHEDINTHENEWYORKJOURNALOFPHARMACY:—

After giving the formula for preparing Stramonium Ointment, as modified by E. Dupuy, the editor of our contemporary adds, “the objection to the officinal formula on the score of color, is hardly valid, and if it was so, it would be better to color it with extract of grass, than to substitute a preparation which will constantly vary in strength and appearance or with the age of the leaves. The officinal extract of stramonium, is easily incorporated with lard, and produces a brown colored ointment of comparatively uniform strength.” We do not pretend to have furnished a formula vastly superior to that received in our officinal guide. But as we were writing for our locality chiefly, and knowing the general expectation{255}and usage of furnishing stramonium ointment of a green color, we have given a formula which does furnish an ointment having a proper strength, requisite color, without the loss of time and material necessarily incurred in manufacturing a color ad hoc as suggested by W. Procter, Jr., which from the contamination of the decomposed chlorophylle of the extract, would never compare favorably (notwithstanding all that useless waste of trouble,) so far as its appearance is concerned, with the far readier mode proposed for transforming at once by a few short manipulations the dry stramonium into an alcoholic extract and ointment without liability to alteration during the process. Respecting the keeping of both ointments, we can affirm that the one prepared by the modified formula, will keep as well if not better and longer, than the other, and as the color is a point of some importance for our public and practitioners, we are satisfied that it will be preferred on the score of economy of time as well as for its color, which is desirable at least within our circle of custom.

EMPLASTRUMEPISPASTICUMWITHCAMPHORANDACETICACID.—Mr. Procter, objects to the addition of acetic acid to the officinal blistering cerate, and seems to smile at the idea of fixing by it the volatile principle of the cantharis, which, by the way, he gratuitously makes the author to say is a neutral substance, when he says not a word about it. He quotes the authority of Mr. Redwood, who in the Pharmaceutical Journal, October, 1841, speaks of acetic acid as not being a good solvent for cantharidine. The reason is, in all probability, from the fact of his using the London standard strength, which is but 1.48. For Messrs. Lavini and Sobrero, (Memoire lu a l’academie des sciences de Turin, 9 Mars, 1845,) state that “concentrated acetic acid,, dissolves cantharidine, but more readily under the influence of heat.” Respecting the volatility of cantharidine, these same chemists have stated in the same paper “that while manipulating with but 52 grammes of flies, for the researches they were making on cantharidine, one of them suffered from blisters produced on the face and lips, by the emanations from these insects.” Besides their authority, Soubeiran, in his Traite de Pharmacie, and Dorvault in the Officine, both state that cantharidine is a very volatile substance, even at ordinary temperature, and if that is, as it appears to be, the ease, what reliable information have we that only 1-30th of a grain was volatilized in the experiment mentioned by W. Procter, Jr., made with 100 grs. of powdered cantharides? Is it not very probable, that in removing the hygrometric water, much more was lost?

Whatever may be the changes which take place by the addition of acetic acid in a concentrated state, it is a fact, proved by experience, that the blistering plaster thus prepared, keeps better—that is, retains its power longer than the officinal one even exposed to the air in thin layers. As an example of the stability of this combination, we haveBrown’s Cantharidinewhich, to all appearance, is made from an etherial extract of cantharides additioned with concentrated acetic acid and incorporated in melted wax. We find such a mixture, although spread on paper and but imperfectly protected from the air, retaining for a long period its vesicating properties. Is this advantage produced by a simple acid{256}saponification of the cerate, without reaction on the active principle, but that of protecting it from atmospheric influences? We think it probable that there is a modification taking place, both on the cantharis and other components of the cerate.E. D.

E. D.

THERICHMONDPHARMACEUTICALSOCIETY.—A large number of the Druggists and Apothecaries of the city of Richmond, held a meeting on the 11th of June for the purpose of forming a Pharmaceutical Society, and, having appointed a committee to draft a constitution and bye-laws, and to report to an adjourned meeting, on the 28th of the same month, assembled on that day, and adopted the constitution and bye-laws reported by the committee. The election of officers was postponed until the 6th of July.

At a full meeting of those who had signed the constitution, the following gentlemen were elected officers of the society, for the next twelve months, viz:—

President,ALEXANDERDUVAL.1st Vice President,JAMESP.PURCELL.2nd Vice President,J. B.WOOD.Recording Secretary,CHAS.MILLSPAUGH.Corresponding Secretary,S. M.ZACHRISSON.Treasurer,W. S.BEERS.Librarian,JOHNT.GRAY.

After which, several nominations for members and associate members having been made, the society adjourned to Monday, 13th instant, that the President might, during the recess, appoint the standing committees, as required by the constitution.

The Society having assembled on the 13th instant, the following committees were reported:—

Committee on Admission—J. Bum, John T. Gray, E. J. Pecot.

Committee on Pharmaceutical Ethics—O. A. Strecker, S. W. Zachrisson, A. Bodeker.

Committee of Finance—Peyton Johnston, Benjamin F. Ladd, Edward McCarthy.

Committee on Library—Andrew Leslie, James P. Purcell, William M. Dade.

Executive Committee—John Purcell, W. S. Bum, R. R. Duval:—

After which, several nominations were made. Appropriations were placed at the disposal of the library committee for subscriptions to various periodicals, and for the purchase of books, after which, the meeting adjourned.

Back to Index Next