Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  \ 
January,  1901.  J 
Editorial, 
EDITORIAL.1 
55 
THE  SPECIALIST  AND  THE  PHARMACOPOEIA. 
In  the  Pharmaceutical  Journal  for  May,  1900,  p.  523,  Mr.  E.  M, 
Holmes  comments  upon  and  takes  exception  to  some  of  the  state- 
ments in  an  editorial  note  on  "  Vegetable  Drugs  in  the  U.S.P.," 
which  appeared  in  the  American  Journal  of  Pharmacy,  May,  1900, 
p.  236,  and  which  was  reprinted  in  the  Pharm.  Jour.,  June  23, 1900, 
p.  669. 
It  may  be  well  to  state  at  the  outset  that  the  editor  lays  no  claim 
to  being  considered  a  specialist,  or  an  authority  or  critic  on  botanical 
nomenclature,  or  the  subject  of  the  origin  of  foreign  drugs ;  and  any 
statements  which  he  may  have  made  must,  of  necessity,  have  been 
based  upon  the  authority  of  some  one  else. 
In  a  previous  editorial  note  (Amer.  Jour.  Pharm.,  1900,  p.  138) 
the  writer  sanctioned  the  view  of  an  American  botanist2  (Proc.  A, 
Ph.  A.,  1898,  p.  242)  that  Engler  and  Prantl's  "  Pflanzenfamilien  " 
should  replace  Bentham  and  Hooker's  "  Genera  Plantarum  "  as  our 
authority.  It  so  happens  that  the  statements  to  which  Mr.  Holmes 
takes  exceptions  are  for  the  most  part  those  which  have  received 
the  sanction  of  the  aforesaid  authority,  viz.,  Engler  and  Prantl,  and 
which  have  been  prepared  by  the  numerous  experts  in  systematic 
botany  who  have  contributed  to  this  monumental  work.  I  pre- 
sent herewith  the  language  used  by  these  experts  in  their 
descriptions  of  certain  of  the  drugs  considered  by  me,  as  also  the 
exact  references,  and  a  careful  comparison  with  the  editorial  note 
referred  to  will  show  the  origin  of  the  information  therein  presented. 
The  exact  references  were  not  given  previously,  as  it  was  considered 
sufficient  to  merely  mention  the  names  of  the  experts  who  had  con- 
tributed this  information. 
1  The  substance  of  this  editorial  has  already  appeared  in  the  Pharm.  Jour,, 
July  21,  1900,  p.  58,  in  a  signed  article.  Since  that  time  Mr.  Holmes  has 
written  another  article  in  reply  for  Pharm.  Jour.  y  1900,  p.  443. 
2  After  carefully  comparing  the  merits  of  Bentham  and  Hooker's  "Genera 
Plantarum  "  with  Engler  and  Prantl's  "  Die  naturlichen  Pflanzenfamilien,"  the 
author  says  :  "In  view  of  the  considerations  above  set  forth,  the  writer  has  no 
hesitation  in  urging  upon  the  Pharmacopoeia  Committee  that  they  sustain 
their  progressive  record  by  adopting  the  authority  of  the  modern  work  "  [viz. : 
the  work  of  Engler  and  Prantl.— H.  K.]. 
