UNIFORM  PHARMACOPOEIA  FOR  THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE.  .11 
Menispermum  Canadense,  when  sections  of  each  were  placed  on 
the  field  of  the  microscope.    The  conclusion  was  irresistible  to 
my  mind,  that  the  so-called  Texas  Sarsaparilla  is  the  root  of  the 
common  moon  seed  or  Menispermum  Canadense. 
Philadelphia,  Nov.  1854. 
ON  THE  ADVANTAGES  THAT  WOULD  ACCRUE  TO  ENGLISH 
AND  AMERICAN  PHARMACY  BY  THE  ADOPTION  OF  A  SINGLE 
UNIFORM  PHARMACOPCEIA  FOR  THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE* 
By  Franklin  Bache,  M.  D. 
Professor  of  Chemistry  in  Jefferson  Medical  College  of  Philadelphia. 
A  difficulty  which  medical  students  have  to  contend  with,  and 
which  is  the  more  to  be  regretted,  because  it  does  not  necessarily 
attach  to  science,  is  to  be  found  in  the  numerous  synonymes  in 
use  in  the  various  sciences  connected  with  medicine.  We  have 
them  in  botany,  in  chemistry,  in  the  materia  medica,  and  especially 
in  the  nomenclature  of  pharmaceutical  preparations.  The 
pharmacy  of  this  country,  before  the  year  1820,-  when  our  first 
national  Pharmacopoeia  was  published,  was  derived  from  Great 
Britain,  which  furnished  us  with  three  standards  of  pharmaceutical 
preparations;  namely,  the  London,  Edinburgh  and  Dublin  Phar- 
macopoeias, emanating  from  the  Colleges  of  Physicians  of  those 
cities.  In  that  year,  our  national  Pharmacopoeia  came  into  use 
as  a  standard;  and  by  its  several  revisions  in  1830,  1840  and  1850, 
it  has  been  rendered  more  and  more  acceptable  to  the  medical  and 
pharmaceutical  professions.  Still,  our  national  work  could  not  be 
expected  entirely  to  supersede  the  British  Pharmacopoeias  ;  and., 
accordingly,  it  will  be  found  that  all  the  Dispensatories,  published 
in  this  country  since  1820,  have  not  only  elucidated  the  United 
States  Pharmacopoeia,  but  included  a  commentary  on  the  British 
works.  The  course,  thus  taken  by  commentators,  was  a  proper 
one.  Our  national  Pharmacopoeia  could  not  be  expected  to  include 
the  whole  of  the  materia  medica  and  preparations  of  the  British 
standards,  a  part  of  the  matter  of  the  three  works  being  peculiar 
to  each  ;  and  yet  the  articles  omitted  deserved  to  be  commented 
on  by  our  pharmacologists,  either  on  account  of  their  lingering 
^Extracted  from  an  unpublished  introductory  lecture,  delivered  Oct.  12, 1854. 
