AFei°uYry^'i19or8m"}     Microscopic  Examination  of  Vegetable  Drugs.  87 
Pharmacopoeia,  with  such  corrections  and  additions  as  the  advance  in  science 
demands,  but  still  retaining  the  style  as  to  terminology  and  other  technical 
characters  adopted  in  the  U.S. P.,  1890. 
(2)  Descriptions  of  powdered  drugs  are  excluded  from  the  U.S. P.,  1900,  sub- 
ject to  the  following  provision  :  when  a  drug  in  the  powdered  state  is  known, 
or  reasonably  supposed  to  be  subject  to  a  specific  adulteration  or  admixture, 
there  may  be  such  a  reference  to  its  powder  as  shall  suffice,  in  a  simple  and 
easy  manner,  to  provide  for  the  detection  of  such  adulterants  or  admixture,  and 
in  other  cases,  where  similar  objects  are  required,  brief  references  to  the  char- 
acters of  the  powders  may  be  made. 
The  following  summer  (1902)  the  sub-committee  prepared  a  second 
preliminary  report  in  accordance  with  the  above  instructions,  which 
was  accepted,  and  is  incorporated  in  the  present  Pharmacopceia> 
with  the  exception  of  certain  changes  which  were  made  while  the 
work  was  going  through  the  press. 
While  the  treatment  represents  certain  advances,  it  is,  however, 
inadequate  for  purposes  of  identification  of  not  only  powdered  drugs 
but  crude  drugs  as  well,  and  it  becomes  necessary  to  consult  other 
works  for  additional  information  on  the  identity  characters  of  the 
official  drugs,  this  feature  of  the  book  comparing  unfavorably  with 
that  portion  devoted  to  the  descriptions  of  chemicals,  which  are 
quite  replete  with  identity  tests  that  are  sufficient  for  all  practical 
purposes. 
It  is  not  my  object  to  discuss  this  matter  other  than  for  the  pur- 
pose of  showing  how  a  resolution  of  the  Convention  may  affect  the 
work  of  the  Committee  of  Revision,  and  how  the  work  of  a  special 
or  sub-committee  may  be  hindered  by  the  votes  of  twenty  or  more 
men  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  progress  that  has  been  made, 
and  with  the  trend  of  events  in  a  particular  field  outside  of  their 
own. 
This  is  probably  one  of  the  weakest  places  in  pharmacopceial 
revision,  where  men  who  are  specialists  in  one  line  are  permitted  to 
vote  on  other  subjects  in  which  they  have  not  special  knowledge, 
and  I,  on  my  part,  have  hesitated  during  the  course  of  revision  to 
vote  on  questions  which  I  did  not  feel  competent  to  consider. 
As  we  have  no  assurance  that  the  same  arguments  will  not  be 
put  forth  again  in  connection  with  the  revision  of  the  Pharmacopoeia, 
we  may  briefly  consider  them  at  this  time. 
It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  sad  commentary  on  the  status  of  pharma- 
ceutical education  in  this  country,  that  the  Committee  of  Revision 
