NA rURE 



525 



THURSDAY, APRIL 5, li 



THE NEW PHARMACOPCEIA OF THE 

 UNITED STATES. 



The Phainiacopccia of the United States of America. 

 Seventh decennial revision (1890). (Philadelphia, 

 Pa., 1893.) 



THE history of the various editions of the United 

 States Pharmacopceia presents some points of 

 in terest. The first Pharmacopceia, published both in 

 Latin and English, appeared in 1820, and so obviously 

 filled a want that a second edition was supplied in 1828. 



The original intention was to issue a second Pharma- 

 copoeia in 1830, but in consequence of serious difference 

 of opinion amongst the delegates to the convention, the 

 d esign was nearly frustrated. The contending parties 

 were for a time unable to reconcile their differences, 

 and two works were produced, one in New York, and 

 the other in Philadelphia, neither of which received 

 o fificial sanction. However, towards the end of the year, 

 a second national Pharmacopceia was published in New 

 York, and was reissued, in a slightly amended form, in 

 Philadelphia in 1831. Ten years elapsed before any 

 further steps were taken, but inj842 unanimity prevailed, 

 and the third revision appeared. The Pharmacopoeia 

 of 1851 gave such satisfaction that in 1855 it reached 

 a second edition. In 1873 there appeared what is 

 officially known as the fifth revision, which was fol- 

 lowed in 1882 by a sixth Pharmacopoeia. The present 

 issue is called the seventh decennial revision of 1890, but 

 did not come into force until January 1894. 



The mode of obtaining materials for the revision of 

 the United States Pharmacopoeia differs somewhat from 

 that employed in this country. To give it the requisite 

 degree of popularity as a national undertaking it is con- 

 sidered desirable that every State should assist in its 

 production. A number of universities, associations, and 

 medical societies are invited to send delegates to a 

 general meeting at Washington, which appoints certain 

 permanent officers and a committee for the revision and 

 publication of the work. It appears that the delegates 

 from the more distant States do not as a rule appear in 

 person, but they are technically represented, and any 

 friction between the often conflicting interests of the East 

 and West is avoided. In the case of the present revision 

 the first meeting was held early in 1S90, and the requisite 

 materials being at hand, the work was completed with 

 commendable dispatch. The committee were fortunate 

 in having for their chairman Dr. Horatio C. Wood, of 

 Philadelphia, an accomplished pharmacologist, and the 

 author of a work on the physiological action of drugs, 

 which is a model of lucid reasoning based on scientific 

 research. Before adjourning, the convention made 



arrangements for publishing a supplement at the end of 

 five years, and for the issue of a complete revision 

 in 1900. 



Several matters of considerable importance engaged 

 the attention of the framers of the present edition. 



First and foremost was the question of establishing a 



fixed proportion, or possibly of fixing the limits of the 

 NO. 1275, VOL. 49] 



active principles in the preparations, of the more active 

 drugs capable of being accurately assayed. The matter 

 was very fully discussed, but after carefully investigating 

 the various processes, which from time to time had been 

 suggested either as general methods of assay or as being 

 apphcable to special drugs, the convention came to the 

 conclusion that reliable measures resulting in even 

 approximately uniform results when carried out by 

 different observers were available only in the case of a 

 very small number of drugs. It was considered necessary 

 that particular caution should be exercised in this matter, 

 seeing that pharmacopoeial requirements and assay pro- 

 cesses are often made the basis of legal proceedings by 

 public inspectors and others entrusted with the duty of 

 enforcing the regulations relating to the adulteration of 

 food and drugs. It was determined to apply the pro- 

 cesses of assay to three drugs only, opium, nux vom.ica, 

 and cinchona, and their preparations, leaving the ex- 

 tension of the system to some future date. The com- 

 mittee were of opinion that there was a fair prospect of 

 being able to add materially to this list at the next 

 revision. 



It was deemed undesirable to make the tinctures of 

 uniform strength, for it was feared that more harm would 

 be done by so radical a change than would be compen- 

 sated for by the advantage of ensuring simplicity and 

 uniformity. It will be seen that the committee were 

 careful not to introduce drastic remedies in matters of 

 policy. 



The adoption of the metric system in the directions 

 for making the various preparations is distinctly a move 

 in the right direction, whilst we note with pleasure that 

 the term "official" has superseded the old word 

 " officinal." 



Certain minor alterations respecting the spelling, mode 

 of printing, and interpunctuation to be followed in the 

 use of botanical names were adopted in accordance with 

 the suggestions of the Paris Codex of 1867. It was 

 decided that species names should be printed with a 

 small initial letter even if derived from geographical 

 names. Certain exceptions were made to this rule, as 

 when the specific name had itself at any previous time 

 been a genus name — Datura Stramonium, to wit — or 

 when the species name is derived from the name of a 

 person, or when it is an undeclinable noun. 



The changes which have been made in the body of 

 the work call for detailed notice. In the first place we 

 find that ninety drugs and preparations have been 

 " dismissed," presumably on the ground that they are 

 valueless, or are no longer extensively employed. The 

 majority of them, it must be confessed, will not be missed. 

 It is probable that few physicians in this country, at all 

 events, have any knowledge of the therapeutical 

 properties of azedarach, cydonium, or magnolia. We 

 are surprised, however, to find extract of malt in 

 the list of expurgated remedies. There is probably 

 no drug more extensively employed, and from which 

 greater benefit has been derived in all forms of 

 wasting diseases. We are justified in concluding 

 that it has been omitted not from any want of faith 

 in its medicinal value, but from the difficulty which has 

 always been experienced in accurately defining it. The 

 arguments against introducing it into the last edition of 



Z 



