46 
The  British  Pharmacopoeia. 
f  Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
1    January,  1915. 
quently  omitted,  and  many  sentences  occur  without  a  verb  in  them. 
Nevertheless,  this  style  does  not  uniformly  characterize  every  mono- 
graph. The  cutting-down  process  has  also  been  applied  in  omitting 
altogether  the  references  to  illustrations  of  official  plants.  This  may 
save  a  little  room,  but,  from  the  botanist's  point  of  view,  is  undesir- 
able, as  it  leaves  the  reader  in  the  dark  as  to  the  plant  actually  meant. 
Thus,  the  rose  which  yields  otto  is  denned  in  some  Pharmacopoeias 
as  the  produce  of  Rosa  damascena,  Mill.,  and  without  the  reference 
to  the  illustration  it  would  be  difficult  to  understand  why  the  Pharma- 
copoeia gives  Rosa  damascena,  Linn.,  the  fact  being  that  the  illustra- 
tion quoted  shows  that  it  is  not  the  typical  Rosa  damascena,  Mill., 
which  is  a  single  rose,  while  the  Bulgarian  rose  is  semi-double,  and 
is  stated  in  "  Pharmacographia  "  to  be  a  variety  of  Rosa  damascena, 
Mill.,  although  Mr.  J.  G.  Baker  thought  it  near  to  R.  gallica.  Under 
these  circumstances  a  figure  that  represents  the  semi-aouble  character 
of  the  flower  and  the  shape  and  size  of  the  leaves  gives  a  better  idea 
of  the  plant  than  a  description. 
Senna  is  now  indifferently  the  two  kinds  formerly  known  as 
Tinnevelly  and  Alexandrian  senna,  derived  from  two  different  species 
and  regarded  by  most  therapeutists  as  differing  somewhat  in  strength. 
The  statement  is  made  that  Alexandrian  senna  is  usually  smaller  than 
Tinnevelly  senna,  but  no  other  distinction  between  them  is  given, 
and  this  character  applies  not  only  to  small  varieties  of  Tinnevelly 
senna,  but  equally  to  the  Mecca  senna  of  commerce,  which  possesses 
the  characters  of  both  kinds,  and  is  usually  regarded  as  inferior  to 
either  the  Tinnevelly  or  Alexandrian  kinds.  Under  senna-pods  no 
distinctive  character  is  given  for  the  two  kinds.  Again,  Alstonia 
constricta  and  Alstonia  scholaris,  two  barks  very  different  in  appear 
ance,  and  used  in  different  countries,  are  included  in  the  same  mono- 
graph under  one  name,  so  that  if  tincture  of  alstonia  were  ordered 
in  this  country  one  would  hardly  be  certain  to  get  a  product  uniform 
in  character  from  two  different  drug  houses  or  pharmacies,  since 
one  firm  might  use  A.  scholaris  and  another  A.  constricta.  Aloe, 
which  may  now  be  one  of  three  kinds,  is  practically  in  the  same 
category. 
Under  oil  of  cajuput,  the  oil  is  said  to  be  distilled  from  the  leaves 
of  M.  Leucadendron  and  "  other  species  of  Melaleuca.3'  The  words, 
"  other  species  of  Melaleuca,"  allow  the  possibility  of  entrance  into 
pharmacy  of  the  Niaouli  oil  from  M.  viridiHora,  Soland.,  which 
Messrs.  Smith  and  Baker  consider  a  distinct  species,  and  that  of 
