It probably is academic by now - perhaps the original enquirer thought that being told that anyone "detested" "nebulous" queries was a bit off-putting. After all, offering help is purely voluntary and if one is lucky enough to have some useful knowledge why not share it - even if a questioner is inarticulate? Statements in censuses about occupations, means and even family relationships are notorious for being fibs - I have met some real porkies. If the man was a "Chemist and Druggist" he would have had to be registered with the RPS after 1841 which could have been the quickest way to prove, or disprove, that particular point. He is unlikely to have been an Apothecary as they were very proud of their titles and it is something he would have been unlikely to hide. I do not think the Guildhall Library ever held the Apothecaries' records, they have always been at the Hall, although where jurisdictions crossed or overlapped they could have had duplicates. Web-sites are not always up-to-date - if you check the Apothecaries' web-site you will see they quite clearly say they no longer have an archivist -so perhaps Guildhall is not up-to-date. As accuracy is so important I would add that I am a Fellow of the Society of Apothecaries' Faculty of History and Philosophy of Medicine, holding their Diploma in the History of Medicine and also have an M.Sc. in the History of Science, Technology and Medicine from Inperial College - they were quite strict on accuracy in their exams! I am also an experienced translator and research worker - although retired and just do things from interest. I'll stop there - not requesting any comment.