404 
Criticisms  of  the  U.S. P. 
/Am.  Jour.  Pharru. 
\  September,  1906. 
inquiry,  and  they  will,  therefore,  but  seldom  find  reflection  in  these 
pages  unless  they  have  a  direct  bearing  on  some  subject  immediately 
under  discussion.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  also  that  the  criti- 
cisms that  will  be  presented  do  not  necessarily  bear  the  endorsement 
of  the  compiler,  the  editor  of  the  Journal,  or  of  any  member  of  the 
Publication  Committee,  and  that  they  are  presented  here  merely  as 
"  food  for  thought,  suggestions  for  observation,  and  material  for 
research  and  study." 
PRESENT  METHOD  OF  REVISING  THE  PH ARMACOPCEIA  UNSATISFACTORY. 
That  the  present  method  of  revision  cannot  give  satisfaction  is 
apparent,  most  of  all  to  those  entrusted  with  the  task.  Work  done 
mostly  by  correspondence,  often  by  members  a  thousand  miles 
apart,  has  its  insurmountable  difficulties  in  spite  of  rapid  mail  ser- 
vice, telegraph  and  telephone. 
What  is  needed  is  a  central  research  laboratory  to  which  the  sub- 
committees may  be  delegated  for  certain  periods,  with  a  proper 
succession  prearranged ;  such  a  laboratory  need  not  be  large,  but 
should  be  supplied  with  everything  necessary  for  research,  especially 
a  good  working  library.  Work  that  has  required  several  years,  with 
its  almost  inevitable  misunderstanding  at  the  very  end,  might  be 
done  in  almost  as  many  months. 
Another  need  is  greater  publicity  in  order  that  the  bulk  of  criti- 
cism may  be  brought  out  before  the  book  is  published  rather  than 
after.    (E.  K.,  in  Pharmaceutical  Review 1905,  page  261.) 
THE  USE  OF  THE  PH  ARMACOPCEIA. 
The  fact  that  the  Pharmacopoeia  is  a  legal  guide  in  so  many  States 
makes  its  neglect  rather  a  serious  matter  for  a  great  many  drug- 
gists, and  none  knows  in  advance  just  how  the  serious  aspect  of  such 
neglect  is  likely  to  first  appear. 
Though  the  Pharmacopoeia  has  for  many  years  been  for  the  phar- 
macist the  most  important  book  that  he  could  own,  it  has,  unfortun- 
ately, turned  out  to  be  the  one  book  that  multitudes  of  them  have 
thought  they  could  best  get  along  without.  True,  they  have  had  it 
served  up  to  them  in  divided  doses  by  the  various  commentaries, 
but  as  a  working  manual  the  original  book*  is  far  superior  to  the 
larger  commentaries  upon  it,  both  as  to  its  size — being  much  less 
bulky — and  in  the  clearer  presentation  of  the  formulas  in  bold  type 
