594  Philadelphia  College  of  Pharmacy,  j 
Am.  Jour.  Ph»rm. 
December,  1909. 
to  be  included  in  the  Pharmacopoeia  in  advance  in  the  pharmaceutical 
journals.  The  first  of  these  was  that  no  copyright  could  be  ob- 
tained, and  a  fund  would  have  to  be  provided  in  some  other  way 
for  carrying  on  the  work  of  revision.  The  second  was  the  delay 
which  would  be  caused  by  submitting  the  matter  to  all  those  inter- 
ested and  to  the  various  learned  bodies  for  criticism.  He  stated 
that  the  main  reason  why  this  Revision  had  been  so  generally  criti- 
cized was  the  passage  of  the  Food  and  Drug  Law,  and  said  that 
while  he  had  no  objection  to  criticisms  of  fact  or  error  he  did  not 
favor  the  passage  of  resolutions  which  directed  the  Committee  of 
Revision,  claiming  that  this  authority  lay  with  the  Pharmacopceial 
Convention. 
Prof.  Henry  Kraemer,  referring  to  the  statement  in  Mr.  Wil- 
bert's  paper  that  the  death  of  Dr.  Charles  Rice  a  year  after  the 
convention  meeting  in  1900,  followed  by  the  reorganization  of  the 
Committee  of  Revision,  was  the  probable  cause  of  the  delay  in  the 
publication  of  the  present  edition,  said  that  while  he  had  no  desire 
to  go  over  the  past  and  was  looking  to  the  future,  he  thought  it 
was  due  Dr.  Rice  to  state  that  at  the  time  of  his  death  in  May, 
1901,  the  work  of  revision  was  well  in  hand.  He  said  that  Dr.  Rice 
appointed  him  Chairman  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Botany  and  Phar- 
macognosy shortly  after  the  meeting  of  the  convention  and  a  little 
later  called  him  to  New  York  to  go  over  the  general  features  of  the 
work  before  the  subcommittee,  and  gave  him  a  copy  of  the  Ph. 
Germ.  IV  in  order  that  he  might  have  in  mind  what  was  being  done 
by  foreign  pharmacopoeias.  Professor  Kraemer  stated  that  the 
first  preliminary  report  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Botany  and  Pharma- 
cognosy, including  the  definitions  and  descriptions  of  the  seeds,  roots, 
rhizomes,  woods,  and  barks,  was  sent  to  the  members  of  the  Revi- 
sion Committee  on  August  12,  1901,  and  that  a  second  preliminary 
report  treating  the  leaves,  flowers,  fruits,  and  herbs  was  submitted 
to  them  on  September  13,  1901.  In  this  connection  Professor 
Kraemer  said  that  there  was  a  number  of  features  pertaining  to 
the  vegetable  drugs  of  the  Pharmacopoeia  of  which  he  did  not  ap- 
prove, and  he  felt  that  greater  publicity  was  imperative  in  that  it 
would  afford  protection  to  the  interests  concerned  and  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Revision  Committee  as  well.  He  said  that  publicity 
in  the  work  is  what  every  one  connected  with  pharmacopceial  revi- 
sion should  seek,  and  that  every  discussion  pointed  to  the  necessity 
of  fixing  responsibility  for  delays  and  for  mistakes  and  of  deter- 
