In the first edition of this book I stated that both systems of naming vitamins (that of naming them A, B, C, D, X, Y, Z, etc., and anti-scurvy, anti-rachitic, etc.) are wrong. I said: "they should be named according to their positive qualities and not according to their negative virtues." This would mean designating them physiologically or functionally and not "therapeutically" or "prophylactically." They play certain roles in the production and maintenance of certain body structures and functions and are not mere "antis." Today, while the tendency is to name each vitamin according to its chemical nature (at least, as rapidly as their chemical natures are discovered), we retain the older designations. Vitamin A, for example, is called the "antikeratinizing" vitamin; yet its true role is not that of preventing keratosis (keras, horn), but that of promoting normal development of the epithelial tissues. The same thing may be said for vitamin B1 the "antineuritic" vitamin, and D, the "antirachitic" vitamin. The true role of the first of these is not to prevent neuritis, but to promote normal nervous structure, that of the latter not to prevent rickets but to promote normal bone formation. Because they function physiologically, they should be designated physiologically. The present perverted terminology results from permitting medical men to name things according to their perverted views of life. Why not designate them epetheliogenic, neurogenic and osteogenic, etc. These or some similar designations would be more in keeping with their true and positive roles.

The following rather condensed summary of the results of vitamin investigation is not guaranteed to be up to date, for every few weeks a new vitamin is announced. Before this book comes from the press several new vitamins may be discovered or hinted at.