560  Progress  in  Pharmacy.  {A?e'CeSrf^" 
official  designation  to  be  used  in  place  of  the  more  cumbersome  cubic 
centimetre.  Imperial  weights  and  measure  appear  only  in  connec- 
tion with  the  doses. 
The  Latin  nomenclature  employed  in  the  Ph.  Brit.  V.  has  much 
in  common  with  that  employed  in  our  own  Pharmacopoeia  of  the 
United  States,  and  a  table  of  abbreviations  of  Latin  names  of  official 
drugs  and  preparations  appears  in  the  index.  This  has  been  some- 
what roughly  handled  by  the  British  reviewers. 
An  editorial  (Chetn.  and  Drug.,  1914,  vol.  85,  p.  480)  says:  "  It 
is  hoped  that  the  abbreviations  included  in  the  Ph.  Brit.  V.  will 
never  be  put  forward  as  legally  binding.  They  do  not  appear  to  be 
at  present,  but  the  list  should  not  go  unnoticed ;  many  of  the  abbrevia- 
tions are  horrible." 
Considerable  attention  has  been  devoted  to  the  lead  and  arsenic 
limits  in  a  number  of  chemical  substances.  Tables  reproduced  in 
the  British  pharmaceutical  journals  show  that  limits  have  been  fixed 
for  a  total  of  nearly  one  hundred  official  substances. 
The  number  of  crude  drugs  and  their  preparations  which  are 
required  to  be  standardized  has  been  increased,  and  the  methods  of 
assay  have  been  brought  up  to  date. 
From  the  available  comments  it .  would  appear  that  the  phar- 
macists of  Great  Britain  are  still  somewhat  dissatisfied  with  the 
method  of  revising  the  Pharmacopoeia,  but  that  the  book,  despite 
its  many  shortcomings,  is  nevertheless  a  great  improvement  over  its 
immediate  predecessor. 
The  publication  of  the  British  Pharmacopoeia  has  again  revived 
interest  in  Great  Britain  in  the  subject  of  local  pharmacopoeias.  In 
a  recent  discussion  of  the  subject  (Pharm.  J.,  1914,  vol.  93,  p.  550)  it 
is  pointed  out  that  booklets  of  this  nature  are  intended  for  per- 
manent use  and  that  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  not  be 
fashioned  after  a  good  model  so  as  to  make  them  not  alone  useful 
but  also  attractive  to  medical  practitioners  for  whom  they  are  in- 
tended. 
In  our  country  the  failure  to  enact  the  Harrison  bill  into  law  be- 
fore the  adjournment  of  the  second  session  of  the  sixty-third  Con- 
gress was  rather  widely  deplored.  Despite  the  opposition  that  has 
been  manifested  at  times,  it  is  generally  recognized  that  the  Harrison 
bill  is  in  no  way  a  regulatory  measure,  but  that  it  is  likely  to  be  of 
considerable  value  in  this  respect  because  of  its  being  designed  to  fur- 
