34 
Sennewald, E. A., suggests that in the formulas themselves the 
ingredients be enumerated in the order in which they are to be mixed 
or manipulated. — Meyer Bros., Druggist, St. Louis, 1905, v. 20, p. 375. 
13. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
Francis, John M., points out that opposition to the metric system 
still exists and that its use is felt by many to entail a great deal of 
vexation. The general use of this system may be delayed until the 
present generation of physicians and druggists shall have passed 
away. — Bull. Pharm., Detroit, 1905, v. 19, p. 275. 
The editor suggests that a most serious shortcoming in the present 
pharmacopoeia is the failure to give equivalents in ordinary meas- 
ures. — The New Idea, 1905, v. 27, p. 137. 
The editor, in discussing “ How to dispense with equivalents,” 
suggests that equivalents, which are dangerous things to fool with 
at best, may be flung to the winds if a couple of dollars be invested 
in a set of metric weights and measures. — Drug. Circ. & Chem. Gaz., 
N. Y., 1905, v. 49, p. 420. 
The Lancet in discussing weighing versus measuring, as applied 
to the dispensing of medicines, asserts that dispensers should con- 
tinue to be guided by the rule : “ Solids by weight and liquids by 
measure.” — Abstr. in Pharm. J., Lond., 1905, v. 21, p. 342. 
“ Gnomon ” in discussing the coming of the “ mil ” points out that 
this name has many and varied advantages over the more cumber- 
some term “ cubic centimeter,” and recommends that the word “ mil ” 
be widely used to designate the one-thousandth part of a liter — 
Ibid., p. 32. 
Wilbert, M. I., asserts that the approximate measures of the 
U. S. P., VIII, are neither decimal in character nor approximately 
correct; the accuracy of this assertion was demonstrated by the 
exhibition of a series of plaster casts of various kinds of spoons. — 
Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 1905, v. 53, pp. 301-304. 
14. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. 
Wilbert, M. I., points out that previous revision committees were 
more than usually careful in the consideration of dismissals and that 
of the many articles dismissed by the revision committees of 1880 
and 1890 but three were considered worth reconsideration by the 
present committee. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1905, v. 77, p. 364. 
Remington, J. P., expresses the wish that “ we could have had in 
the pharmacopoeia more preparations.” — Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 
1905, v. 53, p. 255. 
Thornton, E. Q., says it is a pity that a number of the inert or 
antiquated drugs of the pharmacopoeia were not discarded. — Therap, 
Gaz., Detroit, 1905, v. 29, pp. 732-740. 
