37 
ing and may prepare themselves for the inevitable gradually and intelligently. — 
Bull. Pharm., Detroit, 1906, v. 20, p. 76. 
Leffman, Henry, deplores the fact that the pharmacopoeia is always 
issued under a sort of star-chamber control. Only a few persons are 
taken into confidence, and the bulk of the medical and pharmaceu- 
tical profession finds material for much surprise and astonishment 
when the book appears. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, p. 82. 
Wilbert, M. I., points out that the work of revising the pharma- 
copoeia should be practically accomplished before the meeting of the 
national convention, and the several changes that are proposed 
should be given widespread publicity. — J. Am. M. Ass., 1906, v. 47, 
p. 1991. 
Schimmel & Co. call attention to the very great advantage of pre- 
liminary publication in connection with the revision of the phar- 
macopoeia. They point out that practically all of the errors that 
appeared in the preliminary publication of the monographs on the 
essential oils of the Ph. Belg., in 1903, have been eliminated from 
the completed descriptions. They conclude: 
The procedure of the Belgian Pharmacopoeia Committee to submit their 
draft first to public discussion appears to us to be well worthy of imitation, 
for only in this manner is it possible to avoid incorrect requirements or such 
as can not be fulfilled, which are, unfortunately, up to the present, met with 
in all pharmacopoeias, and which continually give rise to disagreeable dis- 
cussions between the reviser, the chemist, and the manufacturer. — Semi-Ann. 
Rep., 1906, Oct.-Nov., p. 88. 
5. TIME OF PUBLICATION. 
An editorial says : 
The occurrence of the necessity for making numerous amendments and 
alterations in a work that was so long in making its appearance as was this 
(U. S. P., VIII), together with the rapidity with which additions are now made 
to the materia medica, emphasize the necessity for a shorter period between 
revisions of the National Pharmacopoeia. Under conditions like those now pre- 
vailing, a period of ten years between revisions is far too long. Aside from 
the mass of emendations, corrections, alterations, etc., that pile up in that 
length of time and hence make a long delay in publication, the advances made 
by chemistry occur so rapidly nowadays as to amount to almost a complete 
revolution in a decade. — Nat. Druggist, St. Louis. 1906, v. 36, p. 350. 
Wilbert, M. I., points out that if the Committee of Bevision would, 
as it should, present the completed outline of the revised pharma- 
copoeia at the next decennial convention the time for completing the 
revision could be materiallv shortened. — J. Am. M. Ass., 1906, v. 47, 
p. 1990. 
Leffman, Henry, considers that a manual which applies to this 
branch of science should be under the supervision of very few per- 
sons and should be issued in limited editions that will permit a fre- 
quent revision. Two years, or at most three years, is the efficient 
