When such appears, it will be as a labor of love, by one whose regard for the subject is such as to lead him to donate his time and labor, and whose means enable him to bear the burden of a financially unsuccessful enterprise.
The part of the work under criticism is a mere series of definitions, illustrated in a highly unsuccessful manner, and frequently losing sight of the requirement that a definition must include the whole of the thing defined and nothing else. It is very naive to say: “All organic matter containing a green coloring matter called chlorophyl, belongs to the vegetable kingdom,” without directly stating that no other class does, which statement would leave out the fungi, a part of the definition of which is that they contain no such matter. To define Morphology as treating—“Of the organs of plants and their relations to each other,” is not to define it at all, as that would include the whole of Organography, and does not even exclude Physiology, except by virtue of the author’s preceding clause. Systematic botany, defined as “That division which treats of the arrangement and classification of plants,” does not suggest the vital characteristics of that subject. It would be more philosophical to refer to the distinctive characteristics of Phanerogams as the manner in which the embryo is produced within a true seed, than to intimate that the embryo is entirely foreign to cryptogamic reproduction. These definitions, taken from less than two pages of matter, indicate to our mind a lack of the expenditure of time requisite to bring forth a set of new definitions more perfectly in accord with the fullest knowledge of to-day than any list which has yet appeared; and yet when the instruction given in a new text-book is chiefly limited to definitions, that is the very least that should have been attempted.
Some of the morphological definitions are actually at variance with accurate descriptive usage, as that of primary and secondary roots, duration, etc. To call a stem an “axis” and a root an “axis” of a different kind, is to perpetuate a term at the expense of all regard for that accuracy which is the most important element of scientific language. Such subjects as venation are of prime importance to the pharmacist, and so far from restricting the teachings to several of the more important terms presented in ordinary text-books on botany, the classification should be elaborated in its fullest details. Compare the definition of classes, as “Plants resembling one another in some grand leading feature,” and of orders or families, as “Plants that very closely resemble each other in some leading particular,” with the clear presentation of ranks in class characteristics, given by Agassiz a generation ago, and which should, if anything, have been improved upon in the light of modern knowledge and perfected usage.
The subject of nomenclature, the recent agitation of which has done more to expose and shatter erroneous practices in scientific thought and custom than any other influence, and whose correct apprehension is the very corner-stone of pharmacopœial definition, we do not see anywhere treated.
It is a pleasure to turn from a contemplation so depressing to the spirits of one who has labored hopefully for years to secure a just and rational treatment of his favorite study at the hands of Pharmaceutical educators, to Part II. of Prof. Sayre’s book, a work so bright and practical, so replete with new and helpful ideas in the teaching of practical Pharmacognosy, and so full of information, both standard and exceptional, though unhappily marred by many errors, as to secure for it at once a prominent place upon the shelves of the “Handy Book Case.”
The principle is here adhered to of making a single volume do duty as a text-book of Pharmacognosy and of “Materia Medica,” as the latter term is commonly used. We have never looked upon this method as being practicable, but Prof. Sayre resorts to a most ingenious device never before resorted to, by which it must be admitted that better results have been obtained than have previously been reached. What might be called a “Pharmacognostical Key,” or a synopsis of Pharmacognosy, is presented separately in advance of the main body of Part II. Here the drugs are numbered to correspond with the consecutive numbering prominently displayed under the second arrangement, that by natural orders, the proper method for retaining and displaying the natural relationships of active constituents and medicinal properties. The “Pharmacognostical Key” appears to us a failure in its practical workings, owing to indefinite characterization, by reference to taste only of the headings. If a drug is both bitter and aromatic, we have to look for it both in Class I. and Class III. A bifurcating key is here required, or better, we might take a combination of characters for each heading. On the whole, this key, while elaborate and very full, and subject to great improvement by a few trifling changes, we must regard as inferior to that of Maisch’s text-book. Prof. Sayre very sensibly omits all attempt to classify volatile oils, except by indicating their sources.
The arrangement of the matter of the second part is, first, a brief description of the ordinal characters, followed by a list of the drugs belonging to that order, those official in heavy-faced capitals; then the drugs are taken up separately, the official names and synonyms in the important languages presented, the definition, botanical characteristics, sources, related, and similar articles, description of drugs, with the more important characters printed in heavier type, accompanied generally by a picture of the plant and of the drug, gross and structural, important constituents, actions and uses, and a synopsis of the official preparations. The doses of the drugs are given, but not of the preparations, though the strengths of the latter are stated. An unfortunate feature, as in Part I., is the illustrations. They are not at all uniform in effect. While the method followed has given exceptionally good results in some cases, yet in many others they are very unsatisfactory, and this is more particularly true from a scientific than from an artistic point of view.
Valuable a contribution as is Part II., there is an evident unfamiliarity with, or disregard of, the commercial aspects of drugs. For instance, the important distinctions between Cassia vera and C. lignea, and the subject of Batavian Cassia, a correct understanding of which is a great aid in the economy of the drug store, are entirely omitted. The distinctions between Coto and Paracoto are not clear, and in the facts concerning commercial occurrence are reversed. Mace is not, as described, a “membrane,” neither does it “invest the kernel.” Moreover, nothing is said about Wild Mace, now so extensively used as an adulterant that it is possible that it constitutes the larger part of commercial Mace. “Reddish brown” boldo leaves are old and worthless. The description of Piper longum is only partly true, according to the variety under consideration, and the individual parts are not “berries.” The part rubbed off from Piper album is not correctly described as an “epidermis.” The important characteristics distinguishing true from false cubebs is not given.
Appendix “A” is a valuable contribution on the subject of insects injurious to drugs.
Appendix “B” is no less important, it being an account of the contributions of organic chemistry to materia medica.