26 
of the pharmacopoeia with the view of making that book, as it really 
should be, a reflection of the practice and the ideals of the science of 
medicine in the United States. — J. Am. M. Ass., 1906, v. 47, p. 1990. 
Holzhauer has found out that the reason the physicians do not use 
the pharmacopoeia is because it does not give them what they need 
and what they want. He has pointed out to them some of the things 
that were put into the pharmacopoeia for the express purpose of re- 
lieving them of prescribing proprietary medicines.— Proc. New Jersey 
Phatf-m. Ass., 1906, p. 103. 
Arny, H. V., points out that for literature concerning the content 
of the pharmacopoeia he had recommended Bulletin 23 of the Hy- 
gienic Laboratory, Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service, a 
government publication obtainable for 10 cents, and a reprint entitled 
44 The Pharmacopoeia and the Physician,'* published by the Journal 
of the American Medical Association. — Midland Drug., Columbus, 
1906, v. 7, pp. 1034-1035. 
Wheatley, Frank G., in the course of an address says: 
Tlie last national pharmacopoeia has just been issued, and the dispensatory 
which accompanies it treats of all the agents we need to use. If we will con- 
fine our prescribing to articles recognized by this national authority, we shall 
confer one of the greatest boons upon the public, and, incidentally, upon our- 
selves, that the annals of medicine record. — Boston M. & S. J., 1906, v. 44, p. 236. 
Hutchinson, Woods, is reported in a discussion of papers to have 
requested that his hearers would 44 all look at that medical barbarism, 
the United States Pharmacopoeia." He stated that at least one-half 
of its pages should be cut out; instead, somewhere in the neighbor- 
hood of 1,500 or 2.000 remedies had been added. He believed that 
the pharmacopoeia should be revised. — J. Am. M. Ass., 1906, v. 47, 
p. 983. 
Beard, Richard O., says the Pharmacopoeia and the National For- 
mulary are very old and very respectable publications. Unfortunately, 
the men who had the revision of them at the last opportunity missed 
the opportunity, and they are not only very old and respectable, but 
they are very old fashioned. — Proc. Minnesota Pharm. Ass., 1906, 
p. 99. 
Schumaker asks whose fault it is. If the pharmacopoeia is anti- 
quated, why does not the doctor take it up with the medical society 
and see that it is brought up to date ? — Ibid ., p. 102. 
Reilly, T. F., says in his address as chairman of the section on 
pharmacology of the American Medical Association that that asso- 
ciation, with its Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, its laboratory 
force, and its Journal as a mouthpiece of the entire profession, is bet- 
ter equipped for the revision of the pharmacopoeia than anybody 
selected by the Pharmacopceial Convention could possibly be. — J. Am. 
M. Ass., 1906, v. 47, p. 650. 
