24 
2. SCOPE OF THE PHARMACOPOEIA. 
The editor says that ** the book shows that in it there is much to 
commend and but little to condemn/’ and that the committee of re- 
vision deserves the congratulations of physicians and pharmacists for 
the excellent standard that has been prepared. — Pharm. Era, X. Y., 
1905, v. 34. p. 3. 
The editor points out that K there is an air of conservatism about 
the book and its contents which suggests that the compilers are not 
devoid of caution.” — Chem. & Drug., Lond., 1905, v. 67, p. 51. 
The editor suggests that the very excellence of the pharmacopoeia 
is a source of fear. “ In a work of this kind the most important con- 
sideration is its adaptability to existing conditions,” and the question 
arises, Is the book perfectly adapted to the requirements of American 
pharmacists as they are now? — Drug. Circ. & Chem. Gaz., X. Y., 
1905, v. 49, p. 263. 
Wilbert, M. I., deplores the recognition of articles having a purely 
local demand. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1905, v. 77. p. 356. 
Upsher-Smith points out that “ it does not follow that articles 
added are necessarily of value, nor that others dismissed are neces- 
sarily worthless.” He also suggests that physicians compile a book 
of select remedies. He does not appreciate the need for a book with 
pharmaceutical, physical, and pharmacognosticul details. — Pharm. J., 
Lond., 1905, v. 21, p. 885. 
The editor calls attention to the generally acknowledged fact that 
the pharmacopoeia is the one book that pharmacists have thought 
they could best get along without. — Drug. Circ. & Chem. Gaz., X. Y., 
1905, v. 49, p. 263. 
The editor asserts that “ it has been a standing reproach to the medi- 
cal profession in general that they have taken so little interest in this 
important work.” He further expresses the opinion that this is fast 
becoming a matter of history, and that the time is not far distant 
when the pharmacopoeia will be a living part of every practitioner's 
armamentarium. — Med. Xews, X. Y., 1905, v. 87, p. 361. 
“ B. H. C.,‘* Pennsylvania, suggests that it would be better to have 
but one standard and everything in that one book fully covered, both 
as to scope and requirements, — Drug. Circ. & Chem. Gaz., X. Y., 1905, 
v. 49, p. 393. 
Wetterstroem, Theo. D., suggests that the use of alcohol, glycerin, 
borax, benzoin, and hypophosphorous acid should suffice to indicate 
that foreign admixture should not always be construed to be adul- 
teration, particularly when it can be shown that the intent to deceive 
or defraud is lacking. — Ibid ., p. 312. 
Lyons, A. B.. says that “ a criticism that seems quite just is one on 
the needless omission of the various preparations into the composition 
