44 
responsible for its use at the time. It is also necessary critically to 
consider the therapeutic properties, the dose, the secondary effects, 
the method of administration, and the indications, as all are of 
importance in connection with the introduction of an article into the 
pharmacopoeia. — Ber. d. pharm. Gesellsch., Berl., 1906. v. 16, p. 358. 
Remington, Jos. P.. points out that a pharmacopoeia can never 
successfully lead in the matter of introducing new remedies and 
preparations. Its function is to control, to select, and to devise 
standards. A pharmacopoeia can express disapproval of popular 
remedies which are objectionable, and it can take preparations which 
are in general use. possibly improve them, and secure uniformity in 
strength by giving its stamp of authority. — Proc. Pennsylvania 
Pharm. Ass., 1906, p. 98. 
Leffman. Henrv. considers that the introduction of manv articles 
/ c/ «/ 
belonging essentially to the category of crude drugs adds unneces- 
sarily to the size and cost of the book. The items of the pharma- 
copoeia should be limited to substances used as medicines, which will, 
of course, include external as well as internal remedies. Materials 
which are merely used for extraction purposes, for tests or for the 
preparation of other remedies by mere dilution, need not be enumer- 
ated. — Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, p. 81. 
Searbv. TT. M.. thinks the older pharmacists will regret, if only 
for association's sake, the dismissal of kermes mineral. Plummer's 
pill, turpeth mineral, emplastrum-de-vigo cum mercurio, massa 
copaiba, potassa cum calce. pulvis antimonialis, and tobacco. — Ibid. 
v. 78, p. 211. 
Hall. IT. A., presents a critical examination of 600 prescriptions. — 
Proc. Michigan Pharm. Ass., 1906, pp. 78-89. 
Hommel. P. E., thinks that brvonia, caulophyllum, chenopodium. 
pulsatilla. and rumex should have been retained, as they possess valu- 
able medical properties. It is only want of knowledge on the part 
of the regular school that they are not largely prescribed. He thinks 
that kousso, cypripedium, euonymus, geranium, rhus glabra, sassa- 
fras pith, stavesaere seeds, and pipsissewa should have been dis- 
missed.— Proc. Mew Jersey Pharm. Ass., 1906. p. 107. 
Stevens, A. B., notes that the omission of the paragraph giving the 
preparations into which each article entered has been frequently ob- 
jected to, and will be missed by students and pharmacists. — Proc. 
Michigan Pharm. Ass.. 1906. p. 95. 
MTilff, C., calls attention to the change in nomenclature, intro- 
duced in the Ph. Belg., Ill, which provides for the grouping of all 
preparations of an article immediately after the article itself. (In 
the Ph. Belg., Chinee Cortex is followed by Chinee Decoctum, Chinee 
Extraction, and Chinee Extractum Fluidum.) — Ber. d. pharm. Ge- 
sellsch., Berl., 1906, v. 16, p. 258-259. 
