29 
“ Gnomon ” comments on u suggested metric equivalents for some 
doses commonly used in the British Pharmacopoeia. — Pharm. J., 
London, 1905, v. 21, p. 420. 
Van Schoor, Oscar, gives a comparative table of maximum doses in 
the new Italian (1903) and in the Belgian Pharmacopoeia of 1885, 
also some comment on the variability of the doses in the Italian 
Pharmacopoeia. — J. de pharm. d’Anvers, 1905, v. 61, pp. 53-55. 
The Spanish Pharmacopoeia is quoted as defining the term “ dose ” 
as “ the quanthy of medicine administered each time, or in each dose, 
to an adult male.” — Brit. & Col. Druggist, Lond., 1905, v. 48, p. 420. 
6. NOMENCLATURE. 
The section on pharmacology and therapeutics recommended for 
adoption by the house of delegates of a resolution endorsing the 
nomenclature and orthography of the U. S. Pharmacopoeia and ur- 
ging that the American Medical Association adopt the U. S. Pharma- 
copoeia as the standard of nomenclature and orthography in all 
its transactions and publications. — Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 1905, 
v. 53, p. 71. 
Herting, Otto, in discussing the variations that are to be found in 
the Latin titles for the same article in different pharmacopoeias, ex- 
presses the fear that it might be considered too idealistic to have the 
Latin titles in all the pharmacopoeias of the civilized world to corre- 
spond. — Deut.-Amer. Apoth. Ztg., X. Y., 1905, v. 26, p. 127. 
Lyons, A. B., thinks that in general the nomenclature evidences a 
conservative attitude wisely maintained. He discusses a number of 
individual titles and expresses regret at finding such barbarisms as 
“ alcoholis ” and “amylis.”— Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 1905, v. 53, 
p. 260 . 
Kleinschmidt, A. A., in discussing a few of the defects of our new 
Pharmacopoeia bewails the inconsistency in the use of English syno- 
nyms. — Ibid., p. 404. 
Nixon, C. F., asserts that in no case can it be said that the change 
in nomenclature is in the interest of “ accuracy or safety in dis- 
pensing.” — Apothecary, Boston, 1905, v. 17, p. 774. 
Williams, S. W., commends the changes that have been made in 
nomenclature. — Drug. Circ. & Chem. Gaz., N. Y., 1905, v. 49, p. 308. 
The editor comments on the “ fantastic ” Latin of the U. S. Phar- 
macopoeia, particularly the word “ fluidextractum.” — Bepert. de 
Pharm., Paris, 1905, v. 17, p. 479. 
Under the caption “ Horrendous onamatology ” the editor discusses 
some of the new titles found in the pharmacopoeia. — Am. Druggist, 
N. Y., 1905, v. 47, p. 1. 
Changes in nomenclature further discussed. — Ibid., p. 63. 
