49 
An editorial asks, When does the new N. F. become official? and 
points out that the revision committee itself is silent on this ques- 
tion. — Pharm. Era, N. Y., 1906, v. 36, p. 145. 
An editorial points out the need for determining definitely the date 
when the N. F. Ill becomes official and that in view of the pro- 
visions of the Food and Drug Law this date should not be earlier 
than November 1, 1906. — Drug Topics, X. Y., 1906, v. 21, p. 241. 
A book review says: 
One of the best tributes that could be paid to the character of the N. F. was 
the action of the revisers of the U. S. P. in accepting 15 of the N. F. formulas 
for the new pharmacopoeia — formulas for what might be called pharmaceutical 
“ specialties ” similar to those found in great variety on the market. — Bull. 
Pharm., Detroit, 1906, v. 20, p. 348. 
An editorial announces the appearance of the X. F. and points out 
several of the innovations that have been included. — Am. Druggist, 
X. Y., 1906, v. 49, p. 2. 
Wooten, T. V., started an interesting discussion by asking what 
provision is made for directing attention to errors which occur in 
the text of the U. S. P. and X. F. Leo Eliel suggested notification 
to the chairman of the committee on revision of the U. S. P. of the 
A. Ph. A. or the presentation of the facts at the meeting of the asso- 
ciation. C. S. X. Hallberg urged the use of the Bulletin of the 
A. Ph. A. as a medium of communication and advised that the work 
be done promptly and not postponed until 1909 or 1910, in order to 
facilitate the work of revision. Stout suggested that the working 
plans for the different preparations admitted to the X. F. should be 
confirmed by some one outside of the committee. — Proc. Indiana 
Pharm. Ass., 1906, pp. 70-77. 
Caldwell, Paul, reviews the X. F. and calls attention to some incon- 
sistencies and errors in the book. — Drug. Circ. & Chem. Gaz., X. Y., 
1906, v. 50, p. 351. 
An unsigned comment on one of the X. F. formulas says : 
Just why “ U. S. P.” is specified after some of the ingredients and not after 
some of the others, and why it is specified after certain ingredients in some 
formulas and not after the same ones in others, we are not able to explain. — 
IMd., v. 50, 295. 
Wilbert, M. I., points out that the recognition accorded the X. F. 
by the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, gives to this book an 
I entirely new aspect and will make its possession practically com- 
pulsory, not alone to wholesale dealers and manufacturers but also to 
the retail druggist. The book will probably meet with consider- 
able just, as well as unjust, criticism, all of which will tend to make 
future revisions of the book even more desirable and more perfect. — 
Am. J. Pharm., Phila., 1906, v. 78, p. 435. 
11667— Bull. 58—09 4 
