Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
June,  1904. 
The  Forthcoming  Pharmacopceia. 
255 
impossible  to  fix  upon  single  quantities  as  doses,  because  of  the 
idiosyncrasies  of  patients,  and  the  danger  of  prosecution  and  liability 
to  needless  annoyances  in  prescribing  through  the  limitations  thus 
placed  in  a  work  of  authority  like  the  Pharmacopceia.  If  maximum 
doses  were  inserted,  the  physician  who  ordered  a  dose  in  excess  of 
the  quantity  would  be  called  up  by  the  dispenser,  or  he  would  be 
required  in  every  case  to  indicate  by  underscoring,  or  some  similar 
method,  that  a  dose  above  that  directed  by  the  Pharmacopceia  was 
intended.  On  the  other  hand,  pharmacists  greatly  desired  the 
maximum  dose  inserted,  in  order  to  relieve  them  of  the  responsi- 
bility of  determining  whether  a  dose  was  excessive  or  dangerous. 
But  in  the  Convention,  the  views  of  the  pharmacists  prevailed,  but 
it  was  necessary  to  avoid  maximum  or  minimum  doses,  and  insert 
an  average  dose,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  following  instruction  to  the 
Committee  of  Revision : 
"  After  each  pharmacopceial  article  (drug,  chemical,  or  prepara- 
tion) which  is  used  or  likely  to  be  used  internally  or  hypodermic- 
ally,  the  committee  is  instructed  to  state  the  average  approximate 
(but  neither  a  minimum  nor  a  maximum)  dose  for  adults,  and, 
where  deemed  advisable,  also  for  children.  The  metric  system  to 
be  used,  and  the  approximate  equivalent  ordinary  weights  or  meas- 
ures inserted  in  parenthesis.  It  is  to  be  distinctly  understood  that 
neither  this  Convention  nor  the  Committee  of  Revision  created  by 
it,  intends  to  have  these  doses  regarded  as  obligatory  on  the  physi- 
cian, or  as  forbidding  him  to  exceed  them  whenever  in  his  judgment 
this  seems  advisable.  The  committee  is  directed  to  make  a  distinct 
declaration  to  this  effect  in  some  prominent  place  in  the  new  Phar- 
macopceia." 
The  question  of  nomenclature  is  always  an  important  part  of 
pharmacopceial  revision.  Conservatism  here  is  very  desirable. 
Change  merely  for  the  sake  of  change  should  be  avoided,  and  it  is 
gratifying  to  report  that  this  principle  is  being  observed  in  the  pres- 
ent revision.  No  change  is  likely  to  be  adopted  without  strong 
reasons.  Difficulty  has  been  encountered  in  selecting  names  for 
the  synthetic  remedies,  a  number  of  the  prominent  ones  having 
been  admitted,  and  although  the  use  of  long  chemical  names  has 
been  discouraged,  in  a  very  few  cases  it  has  been  impossible  to 
avoid  introducing  such. 
The  use  of  synonyms  has  been  discouraged,  and  this  is  in  accord 
with  the  general  principle  of  placing  in  the  Pharmacopceia  prepara- 
