27 
Stephens comments editorially on the decennial changes in the 
strength of remedies and their doses officially recognized by the 
U. S. P. He asks, How does the doctor stand, who depends upon 
the pharmacopoeia! standards? What effect has an ever-changing 
standard upon the value of remedies? To be authentically correct, 
one must change his skin, so to speak, every ten years. — Eclectic Med. 
J., Cincin., 1906, v. 66, pp. 155-156. 
An editorial asserts that the physician refuses to buy the pharma- 
copoeia because to him it is an utterly useless book. — Critic and Guide, 
N. Y., 1906, v. 6, p. 180. 
An editorial discussing the comments made on the U. S. P., VIII, 
at the Boston meeting of the American Medical Association, says: 
Let us not be cast down that tbe physician criticises the pharmacopoeia, 
but let us rather be overjoyed that he has at last awakened to the conscious- 
ness of the existence of such a work. If the pharmacopoeia is not what the 
physician needs, the fault is his own. — Am. Druggist, X. Y., 1906, v. 48, p. 316. 
Kremers, Edward, describes an exhibit of pharmacopoeias made 
at the Boston meeting of the American Medical Association. — Proc. 
Am. Pharm. Ass. 1906, v. 54, p. 529. 
5. TJ. S. P. CONVENTION REPRESENTATION. 
An editorial points out that medical societies have been slow in 
appointing and sending delegates to the Pharmacopoeial Revision 
Convention. In 1900 the St. Louis Medical Society and the Mis- 
souri Medical Association were represented by the one party, who 
was also present as a delegate from a pharmaceutical body. Thus 
the medical profession of the entire State of Missouri was without 
direct representation along purely medical lines. What is true of 
this State is also true of many other large and influential sections 
of the country. — Meyer Bros. Drug., St. Louis, 1906, v. 27, p. 190. 
Whelpley, Henry M., reports that a communication was received 
from C. J. Borgmeyer, corresponding secretary of the St. Louis 
Chemical Society, suggesting that the chemical societies of the 
United States be invited to send delegates to the convention of 1910, 
and that the matter will receive careful consideration. — J. Am. M. 
Ass., 1906, v. 47, p. 2102. 
Stevens, A. B., notes that one critic thinks that all schools of medi- 
cine should have been represented. — Proc. Michigan Pharm. Ass., 
1906, p. 96. 
Lehman, Henry, says: 
The book is supposed by many to represent the collective wisdom of medi- 
cine and pharmacy ; but the method by which the convention is called destroys 
much of the dignity of it, for a general invitation is extended, including all 
grades of schools of medicine and pharmacy and of medical and pharmaceu- 
tical societies. The great trade interests are sure to be on the alert ; they can 
