31 
and tlie doses to be administered. — Trans. Am. Inst. Homoeop., 1906, 62d sess., 
p. 224. 
Wilbert, M. I., suggests that the work of revision could readily be 
supervised by five or six specialists, as responsible editors of the 
several departments of the pharmacopoeia, and the credit for excel- 
lence or the censure for shortcomings would be more readily meted 
out to the one more directly responsible. — J. Am. M. Ass., 1906, v. 47, 
p. 1990. 
Remington, Jos. P., says: 
As is well known, the consensus of opinion is that twenty-six members form 
too large a number for smooth working and permitting decisions to be reached 
within a reasonable time ; there is no doubt that before the time for the con- 
vention in 1910 a better plan for doing the work will be proposed. The delaj^s 
in issuing the last pharmacopoeia became very irksome, not only to the Com- 
mittee of Revision, but to the country generally. Charles Rice, former chair- 
man of the Committee of Revision, was deeply impressed in 1900 with the 
necessity for a change in the method of conducting the revision. At that time, 
he, more than any other man in the country, knew that a simpler plan should 
be devised, and if his health had permitted him to be present at the convention 
of 1900, he would have used every effort to have induced the convention to 
reduce the number of the committee and simplify the method. — Proc. Am. 
Pharm. Ass., 1906, v. 54, pp. 76-77. 
Kebler, Lyman F., writes that he considers the present edition of 
the pharmacopoeia less serviceable in the drug laboratory than its 
predecessor. — Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 1906, v. 54, p. 449. 
An unsigned note gives a list of the various revisions and editions 
of the United States Pharmacopoeia. — Meyer Bros., Drug., St. Louis, 
July, 1906, p. 194. 
2. NOMENCLATURE. 
Gehe & Co. point out that the nomenclature of the U. S. P. VIII 
is in. striking discord with the general excellence of the remaining 
portions of the book. The titles are part Latin, in part anglicized, 
and in part they still adhere to the antiquated model presented by 
Berzelius. The titles for galenical preparations are more generally 
in harmony with more modern practices. — Handels-Ber., Gehe & Co., 
1906, p. 14. 
Tschirch, A., expresses the opinion that the nomenclature of the 
U. S. P. appears to have been selected without due consideration of 
any particular plan and expresses regret that practices in other 
countries have been given but little consideration. — Schweiz. 
Wchnschr. f. Chem. u. Pharm., 1906, v. 44, p. 420. 
Weigel, G., points out that the U. S. P., VIII, uses the older Latin 
nomenclature for the chemical substances (Calcii carbonas praecipi- 
tatus in place of Calcium carbonicum praecipitatum) wdiile the 
galenical preparations have the same endings as the corresponding 
preparations in the Ph. Germ. — Pharm. Zentralh., 1906, v, 47, p. 5, 
