^eimbe/iS1" }    Pharmacopoeial  Revision  Problems.  573 
in  a  paper  entitled  "  The  Recent  Changes  in  the  United  States 
Pharmacopoeia  "  (see  Proceedings  of  the  American  Pharmaceutical 
Association,  1907,  p.  58)  and  this  paper  was  widely  published  in 
the  pharmaceutical  journals.  The  analysis  of  these  "  Additions 
and  Corrections  "  showed  that  of  the  total  number  (431)  157  changes 
were  duplications  and  reduplications  made  necessary  through  the 
adoption  of  one  change  in  one  part  of  the  book  which  compelled  a 
similar  correction  in  other  parts  of  the  book,  thus :  when  it  was 
shown  that  cochineal  was  better  than  hematoxylin  as  an  indicator 
it  was  necessary  to  strike  out  hematoxylin  and  insert  cochineal 
33  times  and  27  changes  were  necessary  because  of  the  change  in 
the  standards  for  belladonna  and  other  alkaloidal  drugs,  because 
these  drugs  were  to  be  found  in  the  tables  in  the  book  and  also  in 
the  preparations,  so  changes  had  to  be  made  in  the  preparations 
made  from  these  drugs;  83  changes  were  made  because  the  tests 
were  more  rigid  than  necessary  and  some  would  lead  to  an  unneces- 
sary and  great  increase  in  cost.  A  number  of  changes  had  to  be 
made  because  one  was  dependent  upon  the  other,  change  in  specific 
gravity  requiring  a  change  in  the  boiling  point  or  melting  point  and 
so  on.  In  692  pages  only  10  typographical,  editorial,  or  proof- 
reader errors  were  found  and  these  were  corrected  after  the  first 
two  thousand  Pharmacopoeias  were  issued  and  there  were  about 
forty  thousand  corrected  copies  issued  since  that  time. 
In  addition  to  this  the  published  "  Additions  and  Corrections  " 
was  really  a  supplement  which  the  Convention  authorized  the  com- 
mittee to  prepare  and  send  out.  Now  to  expect  any  pharmacopoeia 
containing  nearly  one  thousand  separate  articles  to  be  entirely  satis- 
factory and  require  no  revision  or  change  when  subjected  to  the 
criticisms  of  an  army  of  users  of  the  book,  the  majority  of  whom 
had  never  before  seriously  considered  the  Pharmacopoeia  from  a 
commercial  standpoint,  does  not  indicate  lack  of  ability  or  care  on 
the  part  of  the  Revision  Committee.  On  the  other  hand,  a  fair, 
unbiased  judgment  and  consideration  of  all  of  the  facts  would  be 
that  the  Committee  of  Revision  had  produced  an  excellent  book,  and 
as  Mr.  Wilbert  says  in  another  part  of  his  communication,  it  is  the 
"  peer  "  of  any  national  pharmacopoeia. 
The  writer  cannot  agree  with  the  statement  that  there  are  only 
two  really  vital  deficiencies  in  the  present  mode  of  revising  the  Phar- 
macopoeia and  that  the  two  depend  upon  the  "  New  and  Unofficial 
Remedies  "  published  by  the  American  Medical  Association  and  the 
