Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  \ 
February,  19 17.  ' 
Biological  Standardization. 
61 
amount  of  labor.  The  well-informed  can  never  forget  his  work  in 
this  connection.  With  Dr.  R.  A.  Hatcher,  he  was  a  collaborator  in 
the  writing  of  a  most  useful  volume  called  "  The  Pharmacopoeia  and 
The  Physician."  The  fact  that  this  volume  is  now  in  the  third  edi- 
tion is  sufficient  affirmation  of  its  usefulness  to  the  medical  profes- 
sion. And  in  the  pages  of  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical 
Association  he  frequently  gave  expression  to  thoughts  of  paramount 
interest  to  physicians.  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  medical 
profession  owes  much  to  him  and  his  unselfish  efforts. 
He  graduated  with  honor  from  the  Philadelphia  College  of  Phar- 
macy in  1890  and  in  1903  he  received  from  his  alma  mater  the  de- 
gree of  Master  of  Pharmacy  in  Course.  From  the  Medico-Chirur- 
gical  College  of  Pharmacy  and  from  the  Georgetown  University  he 
received  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Pharmacy,  in  recognition  of  his 
able  work  in  behalf  of  his  chosen  profession. 
He  is  survived  by  his  wife,  father  and  mother,  and  five  sisters. 
Requiescat  in  pace. 
BIOLOGICAL  STANDARDIZATION. 
By  Herbert  C.  Hamilton. 
Under  this  heading  Rusby  (1)  reviews  the  U.  S.  P.  methods  for 
standardizing  the  drug  and  glandular  extracts  which  admit  of  no 
exact  chemical  assay.  He  asserts  that  from  the  viewpoint  of  the 
medical  profession  any  favorable  opinion  regarding  these  methods 
was  almost  entirely  because  of  "confidence  in  those  who  recom- 
mended them."  But  that  even  "this  confidence  was  considerably 
weakened  because  of  radical  differences  which  existed  among  those 
authorities."  The  parallelism  between  therapeutic  value  and  the 
measured  physiological  effect  was  also  questioned.  "  On  the  other 
hand  the  convention  had  the  greatest  confidence  in  the  specialists 
who  were  in  charge  of  these  investigations." 
The  review  while  entirely  impartial  is  lacking  in  one  important 
feature,  it  fails  to  give  the  viewpoint  of  the  manufacturer  just  as 
the  revision  committee  failed  to  give  it  due  consideration.  The 
importance  of  this  feature  is  in  the  fact  that  the  manufacturers 
were  in  many  instances  the  originators  of  the  tests  in  use,  and  had 
of  necessity  developed  them  from  scientifically  interesting  facts  to 
