AmAugust,^9o^!m'}  Eighth  Decennial  Revision  of  Pharrnacopceia.  371 
The  scope  of  the  Pharmacopoeia  could  very  well  be  still  more 
restricted  and  be  made  to  include  only  such  drugs  and  preparations  as 
are  generally  used  in  different  sections  of  the  country.  In  addition 
to  this  general  formulas,  or  descriptions  of  classes  of  preparations, 
should  be  introduced  and  be  made  to  provide  for  a  host  of  prepara- 
tions not  necessarily  carried  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Pharmacopoeia 
itself. 
For  that  large,  and  constantly  growing,  class  of  substances  that 
goes  to  make  up  the  universal,  or  common,  stock  of  medicines  we 
should  have  a  due  and  proper  consideration  for  the  usages  in  other 
countries  and  endeavor  to  adjust  our  descriptions  in  such  a  way  that 
they  will  coincide  as  much  as  possible  with  similar  descriptions  in 
other  National  Pharmacopoeias. 
This  principle,  a  due  regard  for  the  uses  and  practices  in  other 
countries,  is  known  to  have  been  recognized  by  the  National  Con- 
vention that  met  in  Washington,  in  1850,  and  is  commented  on 
favorably  in  the  preface  to  the  Pharmacopoeia  for  that  year. 
Since  then,  however,  man,  through  his  knowledge  and  application 
of  the  practical  sciences,  has  been  able  to  annihilate  time  and  space 
to  such  an  extent  that  important  happenings  in  distant  parts  of  the 
world  may,  in  point  of  time,  be  announced  to  us  before  they  occur. 
The  progress  that  has  been  made  in  this  direction  has  had  a  very 
marked  influence  in  eliminating  local,  and  even  national,  ideas  and 
customs,  and  has  practically  done  away  with  the  clannishness  and 
conservatism  that  formerly  distinguished  and  effectually  segregated 
the  different  nations  of  Europe.  This  same  spirit  of  progressiveness 
has  also  had  a  marked  effect  on  the  science  of  medicine  ;  and  the 
practice  of  pharmacy,  particulary,  has  undergone  changes  but  little 
dreamed  of  half  a  century  ago. 
So  far,  neither  these  changes  themselves,  nor  the  spirit  of  pro- 
gressiveness that  has  brought  them  about,  are  as  fully  or  as  truth- 
fully reflected  in  our  National  Pharmacopoeia  as  they  should  be,  and 
it  remains  for  us  to  say  whether  or  not  they  are  to  be  more  clearly 
portrayed  in  the  next  revision. 
In  this  connection  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  pharmacists 
of  this  country,  individually  and  collectively,  are  responsible  for  the 
shortcomings,  errors,  ambiguities  and  faults  of  the  Pharmacopoeia 
unless  they  are  in  a  position  to  point  out  to  the  present  and  to  the 
succeeding  Committee  on  Revision  why  and  how  corrections  are  to 
