30 
let us be proud of it and give it our hearty support. — Bull. Pharm., 
Detroit, 1906. v. 20. p. 232. 
Gehe & Co. point out that the IT. S. P. VIII might well be con- 
sidered a model in every respect, as both theoretical requirements 
and practical needs appear to have been taken into consideration in 
its compilation. — Handels-Ber., Gehe & Co.. 1906. p. II. 
TCilbert, M. I., points out that for nearly half a century the Ameri- 
can Pharmaceutical Association has taken an active interest in the 
work of revising the pharmacopoeia, and that it is largely due to the 
work done by the committees of this association that the Pharma- 
copoeia of the United States is generally recognized as the peer of 
national pharmacopoeias. — J. Am. M. Ass., 1906, v. 17, p. 1990. 
Remington. Jos. P., in discussing the volume of work involved in 
the revision of the U. S. P., says: 
y «/ 
The chairman of the 1890 committee issued 300 circulars, containing 1,359 
pages. The number in the eighth revision was 634 numbered circulars and the 
pages 2,277, with 370 pages of lettered circulars in addition, making a total of 
2,647 pages. — Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass.. 1906, v. 54, p. 79. 
He asserts that the great obstacles to progress in pharmacopceial 
revision in the past have been the lack of interest on the part of 
physicians, and in a less degree the lack of familiarity and study of 
the needs of the book on the part of pharmacists generally. — Proc. 
Pennsylvania Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 98. 
An editorial, in discussing the criticism of the pharmacopoeia by 
physicians, says: 
Everyone will recognize the necessity of a legal standard for all drugs, even 
though these drugs are never prescribed by physicians. As a matter of fact, 
the amount of drugs reaching the public through the physician is very small 
in comparison with the total amount consumed. — Midland Drug., Columbus, 
1906, v. 7, pp. 1106-1107. 
“ Gnomom *' holds that a pharmacopoeia is not compiled as a stu- 
dents’ guide, nor is it written simply for the benefit of the physician 
or the pharmacist. Its main object, as we are informed officially in 
regard to the British Pharmacopoeia, is to afford to the members 
of the medical profession and those engaged in the preparation of 
medicines one uniform standard and guide whereby the nature and 
composition of substances to be used in medicine may be ascertained 
and determined. The chief object of the pharmacopoeia is to insure 
uniformity in the medicinal substances used by physicians, and 
such a work should therefore deal with all those substances which 
are freely prescribed unless known by experiment to be valueless. — 
Pharm. J., Bond., 1906. v. 22, p. 10. 
Carmichael. T. H., gives the following definition : 
A pharmacopoeia is an official publication containing a list of the articles 
of the materia medica, with their characters, tests for determining their purity, 
