1 8  Revision  of  Pharmacopma.  {^'"•/an%^7^"'*" 
SUGGESTIONS  AS  TO  A  NEW  PLAN  BY  WHICH  THE  NEXT  RE- 
VISION OF  THE  PHARMACOPOEIA  MAY  BE  RENDERED  MORE 
COMPLETE  AND  THOROUGH. 
BY  J.  B.  MOORE. 
On  the  Committee  of  fifteen  persons  appointed  by  the  National 
Convention,  at  Washington,  May,  1870,  and  into  whose  hands  was 
placed  the  important  charge  of  revising  our  Pharmacopoeia,  we  find  the 
names  of  nine  physicians  ;  consequently,  the  greater  portion  of  the 
almost  herculean  task  of  revising  our  national  standard  must  have 
devolved  upon  comparatively  few,  the  others  being  of  but  little  prac- 
tical utility  in  the  work. 
From  such  a  committee,  therefore,  what  could  the  pharmacists  of 
this  country  look  for  but  very  immature  and  imperfect  results,  and 
especially  where  the  laborious  task  had  to  be  performed  in  the  almost 
entire  absence  of  the  proper  aid  and  support  expected  by  them  from 
the  official  representatives  of  the  various  medical  and  pharmaceutical 
colleges,  societies,  &c.,  interested  in  the  work. 
It  appears  from  the  Committee's  own  statement,  in  the  preface  to 
their  work,  that  not  only  the  task  of  "  verification  and  testing,"  but 
that  also  of  tedious  and  laborious  original  research  and  investigation^ 
had  to  be  performed  by  them  ;  such  as  devising  new  formulas,  altering 
and  modifying  old  ones,  &c.,  which  involved  a  vast  amount  of  time 
and  labor  in  experiment,  heavily  taxing  both  the  time  and  physical  and 
mental  energies  of  individual  members  of  the  Committee,  whose 
hands  and  heads  were  already  full  to  overflowing  with  business  of  their 
own.  So  that  every  pharmacist  can  see  and  appreciate  what  an  un- 
wieldly,  important,  responsible  and,  I  might  say,  thankless  job  these 
gentlemen  had  on  their  hands — one  that,  indeed,  involved  the  labor  of 
years  in  investigation  and  experiment  to  properly  mature  and  perfect, 
but  which  had  to  be  hurried  through  in  about  two  and  a  half  years. 
The  Committee  further  remark  that  this  troublesome  part  of  their 
labor  was  "  rendered  necessary  by  the  meagreness  of  details  that  char- 
acterized the  majority  of  the  reports  submitted  to  the  Committee^ 
which  in  many  cases  presented  criticism  or  suggestion  without  furnish- 
ing the  precise  form  of  alteration  or  amendment  in  the  processes,  or^ 
in  the  case  of  new  medicines,  indicating  their  modes  of  preparation." 
They  also  very  justly  remark,  "  in  view  of  subsequent  revision,  that 
the  reports  of  medical  aud  pharmaceutical  bodies  which  are  interested 
