42 
S. Dale, cloth; octavo; 231 pages. New York: Van Nostrand Co., 
1904. — Drug. Circ. & Chem. Gaz., N. Y., 1906, v. 50, p. 219. 
Burge, J. O., points out that he was opposed to the metric system 
of weights and measures until he had tried it and was himself “ con- 
verted. 1 ’ He criticises one of the well-known works on pharmacy for 
the manner in which the weights and measures of ingredients in 
preparations are presented. — Ibid., v. 50, p. 219. 
An editorial comment on a communication regarding the metric 
system of weights and measures says : 
We are sorry for those people who continue to grope in the darkness of 
opposition to the metric system, but it is their own stubbornness that keeps them 
there, and they can step out whenever they are ready to pay a couple of dollars 
for a set of metric weights and measures — and use them. — IMd., v. 50, p. 219. 
An unsigned article, based on an address by Professor McLellan, 
describes the metric system and enumerates the several countries in 
which it has been adopted. — Canad. Druggist, Toronto, 1906, v. 18, 
pp. 141-159. 
Seaman, Wm. H., reviews the progress of the metric system of 
weights and measures during the past forty years and asserts that in 
at least three spheres of human activity it is absolutely universal; 
chemistry, watch manufacture, and the pharmacopoeias. While with 
the latter it can not be said to have progressed far beyond the books 
themselves, the progress made in connection with electricity will more 
than compensate for the overconservatism of English-speaking 
pharmacists and physicians. — Meyer Bros., Drug., St. Louis, 1906, 
v. 27, pp. 18-20. 
An editorial says: 
One of the books for the feeble-minded which “ converts ” the metric weights 
of the pharmacopoeia, speaks of 1.6 ounces. Please, will some one tell us how 
the feeble-minded one is to weigh 0.6 ounce. He has no weights for decimals 
of an ounce, and presumably does not know how to state or solve the problem 
0.6X437+|=. The same book directs the feeble-minded to weigh 4,432 grains 
of a substance. Now, how many druggists have that many grain weights? So, 
supposing the poor fellow has to use ounce weights, and dram weights, and 
scruple weights, and grain weights, how is he to tell how many of each are 
needed? And even if he found somebody to show him how to work out these 
mathematical problems, would it not be easier and better for him to have used 
un-“ converted ” gramme weights of the original text in the first place. — Drug. 
Circ. & Chem. Gaz., N. Y., 1906, v. 50, p. 157. 
Wilbert, M. I., points out that the inclusion of duplicate weights 
and measures in the N. F. Ill, detracts considerably from the 
appearance and the true usefulness of the book. The formulas lose 
much of the simple character and concise form that served to dignify 
and to enhance the working value of earlier editions of the Formu- 
lary. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, p. 435. 
