38 
life of an analytical manual. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, 
p. 79. 
Remington, Jos. P., discusses the difficulties involved in the work 
of revision and ssljs : 
With a pharmacopoeia of the scope we have at present it would be impossible 
to complete the revision in one year. The number composing the Committee on 
Revision prior to 1860 was much smaller than at present, as will be seen by 
the following : The 1820 committee consisted of 5 physicians ; the 1830 com- 
mittee, 17 physicians ; the 1840, 7 physicians ; 1850, 8 physicians and 2 pharma- 
cists; 1860, 5 physicians and 4 pharmacists; 1870, 10 physicians and 5 pharma- 
cists; 1880, 11 physicians and 14 pharmacists; 1890, 9 physicians and 17 
pharmacists; 1900, 8 physicians and 18 pharmacists. — Proc. Am. Pharm. Ass., 
1906, v. 54, p. 77. 
6. DOSES. 
All of the new pharmacopoeias have adopted maximum doses for 
potent medicaments. These maximum doses frequently vary con- 
siderably. The Ph. Nell. also includes maximum dosage for hypo- 
dermic administration of such drugs as morphine and scopolamine. 
Lowe, C. B., discusses the doses of the U. S. P., VIII, and compares 
the quantities given with the figures given by Hare, Wilcox, and 
Maisch. — Proc. Pennsylvania Pharm. Ass., 1906, pp. 100-101. 
Stevens, A. B., remarks that the introduction of doses has given 
general satisfaction, but, as was to have been expected, some of the 
individual doses have been criticised. — Proc. Michigan Pharm. Ass., 
1906, p. 96. 
An editorial discusses the doses official in the U. S. P., VIII, and 
makes some general comment. — Meyer Bros., Drug., St. Louis, 1906, 
v. 27, p. 1. 
Bougault, J., thinks the Revision Committee went even a little 
beyond its instructions in including doses for acacia, tragacanth, 
excipients, etc., which are therapeutically indifferent. — J. de pharm. 
at de chim., Par., 1906, v. 23, p. 289. 
Hawthorne, C. O., discusses the drug idiosyncrasies in relation to 
official dosage, and states that strenuous resistance should be made 
to the attempt to make the pharmacopoeia aught else than an authori- 
tative definition and interpretation of the meaning of terms currently 
used by physicians in prescribing. — -Brit. M. J., Loncl., 1906, v. 1, p. 309. 
An editorial points out that the “ average " doses would have been 
much better if they had been left out of the pharmacopoeia, for the} T 
are exceedingly unsatisfactory, incorrect, and misleading. — Critic and 
Guide, N. Y., 1906, v. 6, p. 180. 
Leffman, Henry, is quoted as objecting to the introduction of doses 
because it will encourage the putting up of medicines by druggists 
without a physician’s prescription. — Bull. Pharm., Detroit, 1906, v. 
20, p. 39. 
