178 © Miscellanies. 
of detail and such a “lynx-eyed revision of the press” as a pharma- 
copeeia, could searcely be expected to escape without faults, if left 
to a committee for revision, yet we must confess, after reading this 
review, that the conclusion is forced upon us, either that this intend- 
ed national work was committed to very incompetent hands, or that 
both the compilers and revisers were extremely remiss in their du- 
ties. The inference to us appears inevitable, that ‘with all these 
imperfections the work could not, under any circumstances, gain the 
confidence of the profession, nor be received as the general standard.” 
But to this impression, so unfavorable to the state of chemical and 
pharmaceutical science in the United States, we find a relief in a re- 
view, evidently by the same writer, in the next number of the Jour- 
nal, (April, 1831,) of “The Pharmacopoeia of the United States of 
erica. By authority of the National Medical Convention, held 
at Washington, 1830. Philadelphia: 1831.” This convention was 
1d in conformity to the provisions made by the Convention of 1820, 
for a decennial meeting of delegates at Washington, for the speci 
purpose of revising the Pharmacopeia. It appears from the stale 
ment of the reviewer, that from certain difficulties and misapprehel 
sions, (which we need not take time to explain,) two conventions 
were held, one at New York and one at Washington. To the former 
we are indebted for the New York edition of 1830; to the latter for 
the Philadelphia edition of 1831. 
We know not how much influence, (or whether any at all,) sec 
tional prejudices, or the rivalship of schools, may have had in the pro- 
duction of these two rival editions of the National Pharmacop®” 
But unless the objections made by this able reviewer to the former of 
these editions, and the general eulogium bestowed on the Jatter, C2 
be proved to be exaggerations, (and we must say that on the face 0 
his shewing, it would be difficult, we conceive, to substantiate @ charg? 
of incorrectness, or of improper bias,) there can be no hesitation, ™ 
respect to these two editions, which of them ought to be recommen” 
ed to the medical student. 
The ninth and last published number of the Journal of Pharmacy; 
contains an account of Liriedendrine, or the bitter principle a 
Liriodendron Tulipifera ; by Professor Emmet of the University 
Virginia. ‘The chemical characters of this substance are well st 
in the memoir. It has hitherto passed for a resin, which, whea oe 
crystallized, it much resembles, but its volatility and other eharact®® 
seem to place it, as the writer observes, with camphor, as 4 ~ 
ing link between the resins and volatile oils. : 
