IOO 
Standardization  of  Digitalis  Bodies. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
March,  1913. 
testing  of  most,  or  all,  of  the  numerous  digitalis  bodies,  pure  prin- 
ciples, galenicals,  proprietary  preparations,  and  the  specialties. 
5.  It  should  afford  a  means  of  comparing  widely  different  mem- 
bers of  the  group,  both  as  to  their  relative  activity  and  their  probable 
toxicity  for  man. 
6.  The  results  of  the  evaluations  should  be  more  or  less  fully 
transferable  to  man. 
7.  It  should  test  that  action  of  the  drug  upon  which  its  thera- 
peutic use  depends. 
8.  It  should  be  Sufficiently  simple  to  be  mastered  by  the  rela- 
tively inexperienced  so  that  its  use  may  be  wide. 
9.  It  should  be  humane. 
10.  It  should  not  be  too  time  consuming. 
11.  It  should  not  be  too  costly. 
It  is  in  the  light  of  these  desiderata  that  the  cat  method  will  be 
criticised  and  compared  with  the  other  commonly  used  methods. 
Those  with  which  it  will  be  compared  are:  i.  the  twelve  hour  frog 
method  of  Houghton  2  ;  2.  the  one  hour  frog  method  of  Famulener 
and  Lyons  3  ;  3.  and  the  guineapig  method  of  Reed  and  Vander- 
kleed.4  No  discussion  of  the  technical  details  of  the  several  methods 
will  be  given,  for  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  those  to  whom  this 
comparison  will  be  of  interest  are  more  or  less  familiar  with  these 
details,  and  the  references  cited  will  provide  others  with  the  facts 
as  described  by  the  several  authors. 
As  the  cat  method  is  the  one  which  is  to  be  subjected  to  criticism 
and  compared  with  the  other  methods,  I  will  present  a  number  of 
standardizations  made  by  it  and  taken  at  random  to  provide  material 
for  analysis.    These  are  given  in  Table  1. 
Table  i. 
Miscellaneous  Assays. 
Exp. 
Drug 
Dose  in  Mg.  Average 
Xkg. 
Maximum  variation 
from  average  in 
per  cent. 
Ouabain  A 
I 
0.086 
2 
0.1 10 
3 
4 
5 
0.090 
0.099 
*  0.069 
2  A.  J.  PHARM.)   I9O9;  8i;  p.  461. 
3  Proc.  Am.  Pharm.  Ass.;  1902;  L;  415. 
4  a.  j.  pharm.;  1908;  80;  p.  no. 
