26 
decade (1910), provided that by such expiration the trade name 
would also become free.” — J. Am. M. Ass., Chicago, 1905, v. 45, 
p. 110. 
Williams, S. W., in commenting on the admission of synthetics 
calls attention to the fact that the whole question is much involved 
and will be made a matter for international adjustment. — Drug. Circ. 
& Chem. Gaz., N. Y., 1905, v. 49, p. 308. 
Hinrichs, Carl G., points out that the committee on revision has 
followed in the wake of the British, Germans, and French in intro- 
ducing synthetics, and that it would indeed be folly to refuse these 
agencies a place in the U. S. P. He deprecates the omission of the 
trade names, at least as synonyms. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1905, v. 
77, p. 505. 
“ Gnomon,” taking a suggestion from the preface of the new U. S. 
P., urges the publication of a list giving date of patent, date of ex- 
piration, and proprietary rights, if any, in the name used. — Pharm. 
J., Lond., 1905, v. 21, p. 388. 
Wilbert, M. I., calls attention to the intricate nature of the prob- 
lems involved in the official recognition of synthetics and compares 
the trade names of several of the newly admitted synthetic remedies 
with the official titles given them in the U. S. P., VIII, the Ph. Brit., 
IV, and the Ph. Germ., IV. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1905, v. 77, p. 
356. 
Gane, E. H., in the address as chairman of the section on scientific 
papers of the A. Ph. A., suggests that we are going too fast for the 
business pharmacist and assuming too much interest on his part in 
scientific studies. He also points out the desirability of cooperating 
with the council on pharmacy and chemistry of the American Med- 
ical Association so as to control the unnecessary proliferation of syn- 
thetics and new remedies. — Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 1905, v. 53, pp. 
174-179. 
The editor, in commenting on the absence of well-known synthetics, 
says : 
It is due to the pharmacists of the Union that these articles should appear 
under their common names. — Canad. Pharm. J., Toronto, y. 39, p. 213. 
The editor wonders whether pharmacists and physicians will ever 
get to know the old familiar synthetics under their new names, 
and, at this late day, use these names in place of the customary ones. — 
Bull. Pharm., Detroit, 1905, v. 19, p. 314. 
Remington, J. P., in a communication to the editor points out the 
reason why trade names were not used in the new pharmacopoeia. — 
Ibid., p. 344. 
The editor in discussing “ Trade names in the new pharmacopoeia ” 
considers the general question of property right in an invention. — 
Drug. Circ. & Chem. Gaz., N. Y., 1905, v. 49, p. 301. 
