better times. The crops of the last two years were abundant, and good prices ruled, so that the agricultural class, upon which all business hinges, was in good financial condition. In some lines of trade, of course, business was not what it might have been, but still, cutting and other ruinous practices were not so much in vogue as in preceding years. The outlook for another good year is bright and we hope that all our readers will be benefitted and get their share of the business that seems to be in prospect.

OFFICIAL AND OFFICINAL.

In our November issue we criticized the Quebec Board of Examiners for translating the term "official preparations" into French by the term "préparations officinales." It now appears that the Board was divided on the question, the examiner who made the translation holding that he was right, that the French word "Officinal" conveys the same meaning as the English word "official." We think his arguments have no foundation, as all the authorities are against him.

official."

Becherel's definititions are as follows: "Officiel.-Ce qui est declaré, proposé, publié, en vertu d'une authorité reconnue."

"Officinale.-Se dit des medicaments qu'on doit trouver prêts dans les officines, c. à. d., chez les pharmaciens. Medicaments officinales-les electuaires, les sirops, les emplatres, etc., sont les préparations officinales.

Spiers & Surenne. Translate official by officiel ; officinal, by officinal, used in shops.

Becherel in his definitions would seem to be against us, but it will be noticed that he says "qu'on doit trouver prêts dans les officines," but nothing about being authorized, while the definition of the word officiel clearly supports our claim that the term applies only to drugs or preparations; "declaré, proposé, publié en vertu d'une authorité reconnue," that is, by or in the Pharmacopoeia. As a general rule all official drugs and preparations are officinal, but not a tenth part of officinal drugs and preparations are official. As before stated, in the United States the term officinal is very frequently applied to authorized preparations of the Pharmacopoeia. The reason is that the Pharmacopoeia really has no

is official if it is authorized by the British Pharmacopoeia; if authorized by the United States or French Pharmacopoeia we say that is official in the U.S.P. or Codex as the case may be, but no one with a due appreciation of the meaning of the words would say officinal in the B. P., or U. S. P.. or Codex.

The Century Dictionary defines the word "official" as follows:

Official (F. officiel) derived from the proper office or officer, or from the proper authority; hence, authorized (from the Latin, officium, duty, office.) Officinal (F. officinal). From the Latin, officina, a workshop or laboratory. Of or pertaining to a shop or laboratory; used in a shop or laboratory; a drug or medicine sold in an apothecary's shop; specifically, a drug prepared according to the pharmacopoeia.

The latter statement is not correct according to English custom. Americans generally use the term officinal incorrectly for official, the explanation of which we will give later.

Webster gives the following definitions:

"Official" (F. officiel). Pharm.-Approved by authority; sanctioned by the pharmacopoeia; made or communicated by the proper authority, as an official drug or preparation.

"Officinal." Pharm.-Kept in stock by apothecaries; said of such drugs and medicines as may be obtained without special preparation or compounding.

This term is often interchanged with official, but in strict use officinal drugs are not necessarily

ed under government authority, but only by that of the Pharmacopoeia Revision Committee. Although generally accepted as the standard of the courts, still it would be better if the term official was universally adopted.

However, this is a digression from the main point which we started out to prove. It will be seen that all the authorities we have quoted, The Ceutury Dictionary, Webster, Becherel, and Spiers & Surenne, support our claims. The fact that some. French writers, as well as some American writers, sanction the use of the word officinal where the correct English custom prescribes the word official, does not warrant us in following their bad example; as we have the two words to denote two different states of things, these words should be properly translated in order to denote such difference.

Examination questions should be so clearly worded that there may be no question as to the exact meaning of every word and phrase, and if the English examiners use the word official, the French examiners should use the word officiel, which means exactly the same thing, and not officinal which means an entirely different thing. There can be no dispute about what is meant by the first word, whereas there can be about the latter, and for the sake of clearness and definiteness the word officiel should be adopted.

He-My views on bringing up a family— She-Never mind your views. I'll bring up the family. You go and bring up the coal.

Editorial Motes.

Baron Iveagh, of the great Guinness brewing firm of Dublin, has given £250,000 to the Jenner Institute of Preventive Medicine, for the furtherance of research work in bacteriology.

Chicago aldermen are again after the shekels of the drgggists. They are now considering a proposition to put on a special tax of $250. It would appear as if American legislators have a notion that the druggist can always be called on when funds are needed, for instance, the War Tax, the bulk of which is paid by druggists.

Mr. Fred. Stearns, of Detroit, has donated to the University of Michigan a great collection of musical instruments which he has gathered from all parts of the earth. It is claimed that the collection is the most complete in America, in that it shows the complete evolution of the various classes of instruments, from the simplest and most primitive forms to the artistic instruments of to-day. The only condition imposed on the University is that the collection shall be always open to the public.

After a struggle extending over some nine or ten years New Zealand pharmacists have at last secured the passing of an act which is characterized by the Australian Journal of Pharmacy "as at least reasonably fair." It passed the Legislature on the 1st of November, '98, and became operative on Jan. 1st, '99. Amongst the objects secured are: the incorporation of a New Zealand Pharmaceutical Society; the prohibiting of all but registered chemists from dispensing physicians' prescriptions, and a three years term of apprenticeship.

British pharmacists are bracing themselves for a contest with company pharmacies. The British Act contains the same defect which exists in our Ontario Law. The word "Person" where used in the Act is undefined, consequently is not applicable to corporate bodies. An effort is to be made to have such an amendment passed as will bring all companies under the provisions of the law. The unfairness of present conditions was clearly demonstrated recently when an effort was made to prosecute The R. Simpson Co. for a violation of the Weights and Measures Act by selling 16 oz. of Cod Liver Oil for a pint. The ruling of the Court was that there existed no machinery for enforcing the law against limited companies.

WHAT OTHERS THINK.

CANADIAN PHARMACISTS BECOME OPTICIANS.

A considerable number of the pharmacists of Canada have made themselves the opticians of their respective communities. The idea has lately been given the sanction of the Ontario College of Pharmacy, which has added a course in optics to its curriculum. And the Canadian pharmaceutical editors have fallen into line by instituting departments of optics in their journals.

We do not know whether this course is to be commended or not. Pharmacists in the United States more often than not keep glasses intended to correct the inability of the eye as it grows older to focus rays of light at short distances, a natural change which begins about middle age and usually grows in degree until very old age is reached. Glasses for this simple trouble can easily and correctly be chosen by the patient himself. He needs only to see if they enable him to focus printed objects at the proper reading distance. But any eye abnormality outside of this simple one, such as astigmatism and excessive degrees of short and far-sightedness, call for educated skill, experience, and the use of determinative instruments. Patients suffering from these troubles need glasses specially designed for their particular cases. No ordinary formula will do. Often, indeed, the two eyes are so unlike each other as to make different glasses necessary. Not only are special instruments needed with which to diagnose these cases, but in the great majority of them the use of a mydriatic, like atropine or homatropine, is necessary; for otherwise what oculists call the latent" abnormality, which is in truth the more important consideration, cannot be discovered. Moreover, when the diagnosis has been correctly made, it is often the case that full correction for the trouble should not be given, else more harm than good results.

Now there is no doubt that pharmacists who would take a special course in optics at some reputable college would be capable of acting as creditably as the average optician. Without this course, however, his practice as an optician would be nothing short of criminal, and even with it we are of opinion that certain portions of the practice would be denied him under the laws of some of the States. But the law aside, is it wise for the pharmacist to take a course in optics and begin practise? Should he become an optician any more than a dentist or a veterinarian? He may sell simple glasses just as he sells dental specifics and veterinary remedies; but should he go farther than this Bulletin of Pharm.

Original Papers.

The Supposed Conversion of Calomel into Corrosive Sublimate in the Presence

of Sodium Chloride.

O. H. TANSEY.

The idea that calomel when administered with sodium or ammonium chloride is converted into mercuric chloride is one of the fairy tales of science that persists in spite of several denials, and of the fact that such a change does not appear to be consistent with common sense.

The first to make the statement was, as far as I can find, a French chemist named Mailhe, and others copied it without comment. Some years ago Dr. Louis D. Morrison, of the Phila. College of Pharmacy, investigated the subject and found that there was no foundation for Mailhe's statement. More recently Prof. Patein said at a meeting of the Paris Société de Thérapeutique that Mailhe's statement was "une legende." At the same meeting Prof. Pouchet remarked that if sodium chloride could convert the mercuric chloride it would be necessary not only to prescribe calomel alone, but also to eliminate all the chloride from the system. It would appear also that if such change took place, it would be impossible to administer calomel at all, since the hydrochloric acid of the stomach would produce the same change. Again, if any such reaction be possible it would probably be represented by the following equation:

Hg,Cl2+2Na Cl=2Hg Cl2+2Na.

What becomes of the liberated sodium? I think even a superficial knowledge of the chemical characteristics of the two bodies would show that such reaction is improbable if not absolutely impossible. In order to settle the question to my own satisfaction I undertook the following experiments:

0.5 gramme each of calomel and sodium chloride were mixed with 100 ccs. of artificial digestive juice as directed in the U. S. P. assay of pepsin. The mixture was kept at 96° to 100°F. for six hours in a water oven, shaking frequently. I then filtered, and tested the solution with the usual reagents for mercuric chloride. The same mixture of salts was allowed to remain in contact with .2% hydrochloric acid for six hours, filtered and the filtrate tested with result.

The same experiments were tried, using ammonium chloride instead of the sodium salt with similar results.

From these experiments it is evident to me that the statement of the text-book is not founded on fact.

Selected Papers.

WHITE BREAD VERSUS BROWN BREAD.

Dr. Lauper Brunton and Dr. Tunnicliffe (British Medical Journal; Dietetic and Hygienic Gazette, December,) published in the current volume of the St. Bartholomew's Hospital Reports an instructive communication on the relative digestibility of white and brown bread. On the strength of certain experiments, which they describe in full, they feel justified in concluding that the higher nutritive value which might on purely chemical grounds be ascribed to brown bread can not be maintained from the physiological side. With regard to fats and mineral constituents on the other hand, distinctly less of the nutritive materials actually get into the case of brown than of white bread. White bread is, weight for weight, more nutritious than brown. It thus would appear that the preference given by operatives in large towns to white bread has to a certain extent a sound physiological basis. In the case of people with irritable intestines white bread is to be preferred to brown. In the case of people with sluggish bowels brown bread may be preferred to white, as it tends to maintain peristalsis and insures regular evacuation of the bowels. If the proportion of mineral ingredients, and especially of lime salts, in other articles of food or drink is insufficient, brown bread is preferable to white. It is possible that in the case of operatives living chiefly upon bread and tea, the preference for white bread which prevails may be responsible, in part at least, for the early decay of the teeth. An abundant supply of mineral constituents is especially required in suckling women and in growing children, in order to supply material for the nutrition of the young. In such cases, if mineral salts, especially those of calcium, are supplied by other food stuffs, drinks or medicines, brown bread is preferable to white. Lastly, the authors are of opinion that if the dietary be insufficient in fat, or if the patient is unable to digest fat readily in other forms, brown bread may possibly be preferable to white. The authors rightly dwell on the absurdity of taking the mere chemical composition of a food stuff as an index of its nutritive value. "A stick of charcoal, the atmospheric air, a little water, and some sea salt, contain all the elements of a typical diet and in ample quantity." Hence it is not always a question of what a food stuff contains, but how it contains it.-N. Y. Med. Journal.

Parson Goode (who has stumbled and wrenched his knee, agonizingly)-Oh! oh! oh! Sympathetic Youth (in a whisper)-Cuss, if yer wanter, parson; I won't squeal on yer.