REPOET ON THE NEW OR FIFTH DECENNIAL REVISION OF THE UNITED STATES PHARMACOPEIA, TO ’.THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF HEW YORK. BY EDWARD R. SQUIBB, M. D., [REPRINTED FROM THE NEW YOB.K MEDICAL JOURNAL, APRIL, 1573.] NEW VORK: D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 549 & 551 Broadway. 18 73. REPOET ON THE NEW OR FIFTH DECENNIAL REVISION OF THE UNITED STATES PHARMACOPEIA, TO TEE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF HEW YORK. BY EDWARD R. SQUIBB, 3VL D., [REPRINTED FROM THE NEW YORK MEDICAL JOURNAL, APRIL, 1573.] NEWYORK: D. APPLETON AND COMPARY, 549 & 55 1 BROADWAY. 1873. REPORT ON THE NEW OR FIFTH DECENNIAL REVISION OF THE UNITED STATES PHARMACOPEIA.1 To the Medical Society of the State of New Torh: As chairman of the delegation sent to represent this So- ciety in the Decennial Convention for the revision and publi- cation of the IT. S. Pharmacopoeia—which convention met in Washington, in May, 1870—it now becomes the duty of the undersigned to report that the revision and publication of the U. S. Pharmacopoeia have been completed ; and to present a copy of this new fifth revision to the Society for preservation in its library. In presenting the completed work, it may be useful to the Society, and is necessary to the writer as one of the Society’s representatives in the matter, to direct attention to some prom- inent points in the new Pharmacopoeia, and to ask the earnest, thoughtful attention of the profession to this important subject. If the medical profession does not advance with the rapid progress of other departments of human knowledge and skill, its useful results will be proportionately small, its influence 1 Read before the Medical Society of the State of New York, February 5, 1873. 4 for good will be more and more weakened, and its ranks be more and more demoralized by error and scliism. In its strug- gle for life, inherent strength alone can secure the “ survival of the fittest.” In order to advance with the rapid progress of other knowledge, it must adopt all the means necessary to that end, and therefore must attain a much hig] degree of accuracy in observation and research, as well in the objective as in the subjective branches of medical science. Medical science, as a department of physical science, is thoroughly objective in its character, and very simple and direct in its design, and is of established value and importance; and, if physicians would but take the example of other physi- cists in the precision and accuracy of their investigations, their ranks would become more orderly and compact as their results became more definite and certain. The element of primary importance to accuracy in observation and research is quality, or greatest attainable perfection in the instruments of investigation. The telescope and spectroscope, the galvanic battery, and the lever and axle fo other physicists, fairly rep- resent the materia medica to the physician. And, if the ma- teria medica be not improved in accuracy, precision, and uni- formity, as the telescope, spectroscope, and microscope are the observations made through its agency must continue to be indefinite and uncertain from this cause, and can never rise to the dignity or utility of accurate research. The new Pharmacopoeia having been received within the two weeks just past (February 1, 1873), your reporter can offer but an imperfect and hasty review of it. Nothing can be said as the result of trial and experience of its new pro- cesses, and all that is here written is offered as the mere indi- vidual judgment of the writer, made up somewhat hastily, but not carelessly. Where this judgment is at variance with that of the Committee of Final Kevision and Publication—a numerous committee whose high character is well known—the writer is fully sensible of the weight against him, and of the well-earned advantage such a committee must always have in the minds of careful readers. In making a report at this time, rather than at the annual meeting a year hence, only a few prominent points can be 5 touched upon in detail; but, it is hoped that even this may not be without use in awakening a new interest in the materia medica, and in attracting special attention to the new Phar- macopoeia. The mechanical execution of the book leaves nothing to be desired. The paper, type, printing, and binding, are highly creditable, both to the committee and to the publishers, and partly justify the increased cost of the book. Both the book and the printed page are slightly larger than the last, but, the type being smaller, though perhaps equally clear, the pages contain very much more matter. Hence, the book with some one hundred and nine additional articles, and twelve dismissed, is still sixteen pages less than the last, or the difference between 383 and 399 pages. The work of the publishers’ proof-reader is well done, only one single typographical error having been noticed—namely, on page 125, where u platinum oil ” is print- ed for “ platinum foil.” As the convention did not at its last session, as it did at the previous one, direct that the copyright revenue be ex- pended in cheapening the book to the public, but directed that the expenses of the committee should be paid from it, the public has now a better book. It is highly probable that the income from the copyright of the Pharmacopoeia might be greatly increased by offering it to the competition of several publishing houses, and all the income which could be thus ob- tained might be most wisely expended upon—and would most likely pay for—all the expert labor involved in the work, When your reporter served as your representative in this committee in 1860, several respectable Hew York publish- ing houses applied to him to have the copyright opened to competition, and given to the highest bidder, and your re- porter urged upon that committee both the propriety and jus- tice of this course; but the proposition met with neither favor nor support, and was promptly voted down. The committee, however, decided to seek some information from the publish- ers bearing upon the value of the copyright; but the pub- lishers declined to furnish the information, because it was con- nected with their business affairs, and the committee was sat- isfied with this refusal. It was because of such action as this 6 being not infrequent during tlie two years’ deliberations of that committee—and not from an indisposition to work, and to tell freely all he knew, and to travel a hundred and eighty miles a week to do it—that your reporter persisted in refusing to serve upon the present committee—the committee being substantially the same as the preceding one. The Pharmacopoeia begins with the “ Proceedings of the Convention of 1870 for revising the Pharmacopoeia. Filth Decennial Pevision.” And there is no improvement in the meagre and insufficient abstract of the proceedings of this convention which gives to the work its organic existence and authority. In order that this feature might be improved, the convention directed its secretary to employ a stenographer; but the secretary reported that a stenographer could not be had in Washington at that time. The “ Proceedings,” how- ever, could have been much improved without a stenographer, if only by the publication of the Peport of the Committee of Pevision and Publication for 1860—short and meagre as this was for so important a work. In the “ Proceedings ” it will be seen that the convention discussed the general principles, and adopted a general plan, for the new Pharmacopoeia, and then, as usual, appointed a Committee of Final Pevision and Publication to carry out the plan thus adopted. Among the resolutions which form this plan for the new Pharmacopoeia, as adopted by the convention, for the governance of its Com- mittee of Final Pevision and Publication, is the following : “ Resolved, That measures of capacity he abandoned in the Pharma- copoeia, and that the quantities in all formulas be expressed both in weights and in parts by weight.” This resolution, with the others which constitute the plan of the convention, was brought in by a committee of five promi- nent delegates, and was drawn up in the interest of an impor- tant degree of progress in precision and accuracy, which had already been attained in the same way by other national Phar- macopoeias. The resolution was freely discussed by the conven- tion, and the practical difficulties, and the labor involved in carrying it out, were fairly pointed out and urged, and were fully considered, and the convention deliberately decided that the advantages to be gained in accuracy and precision would 7 be a true progress, and worth the labor involved; and, after this full discussion, the resolution was adopted by the conven- tion. This action of the convention was considered by the writer, and by others familiar with the subject, as one of the most important steps that could be taken in a general plan to bring the Pharmacopoeia up to the date of its revision ; and accord- ingly, when the new issue appeared, this improvement was looked for, but looked for in vain, for the measures of capacity and the weights of the old issue were found unchanged. The reasons why the Committee of Final Revision and Publication refused to carry out the directions of the conven- tion in this resolution are given in the preface of the Pharma- copoeia as follows: “ To execute such directions, entails the use of a metrical system not employed in this country or in England, and which would have to be constructed for the purpose. Such a change would involve changed proportions in almost every formula, and would produce a corresponding disturbance in many of the doses. Moreover, such directions were not anticipated in any of the revisions handed to the committee; and to insti- tute such extended experiment as would cover the whole ground of the directions of the Pharmacopoeia, would entail so much expenditure of time, labor, and cost as to render the plan impracticable. This view of the question was unani- mously taken by the committee at a meeting consisting of ten members.” These reasons will have more or less weight as they may be viewed by different persons from different points of view. But, how any reasons whatever, can justify a committee in refusing to carry out the deliberate directions of the superior authority by which the committee was created, must be gen- erally difficult to comprehend. To the perhaps prejudiced judgment of the writer the reasons given appear to be those of a committee which did not like labor, and therefore refused it upon whatever pretext could be found. This, however, fails to account for the action of the committee when it is considered that the time and la- bor involved were mainly of a mechanical and clerical nature, 8 and might have been hired for the purpose, since the holew value of the copyright of the Pharmacopoeia was available, by- authority of the convention, to satisfy the cost of revision; the committee-men in this, as in all past revisions, generously con- tributing their own time and labor entirely without cost to the work. This much-needed and expected improvement in the na- tional Pharmacopoeia is, therefore, lost for the next ten years, unless the committee should see fit to avail itself of the au- thority given by the convention to issue another revision prior to that of 1880. The Preface is well and forcibly written, and gives a con- cise account of the prominent features of this revision. The following admirable paragraph will, doubtless, commend itself to all: “ In accordance with the resolutions of the convention, the c scope of the work has been extended rather than abridged; ’ and it has been the desire of the committee to adapt it to the wants of our extended country, without losing sight of the conservative character necessarily pertaining to a national Pharmacopoeia. Such a work must necessarily follow in the wake of advancing knowledge; it is no part of its mission to lead in the paths of discovery. It should gather up and hoard for use what has been determined to be positive improvement, without pandering to fashion, or to doubtful novelties in phar- maceutical science.” It is, however, unfortunate that an important proportion of the present revision does not correspond to the precept so clearly set forth in this paragraph; as, for example, the intro- duction of glycerin into thirty-four of the forty-six fluid ex- tracts. In the summary account of the one hundred and nine ad- ditional articles introduced, an excellent opportunity for cour- tesy if not justice to the British Pharmacopoeia was lost, since that standard has been so largely drawn upon by the commit- tee as in some instances to follow its defects. The Preface concludes with a very slight allusion to the amount and importance of the labors of the committee, which, though quite proper and entirely consistent with the high 9 character and good taste of the gentlemen concerned, conveys to the ordinary reader no just conception of either the charac- ter or the amount of work involved in the duties accepted by them in the interest of their professions. The Preliminary Notices of the Pharmacopoeia are found unchanged. Under the caption of “ Temperature,” the term “ gentle heat” is still defined, while the similar conventional terms “ moderate heat,” “ regulated heat,” etc., are still left without definition. Under the caption “ Stoppage of Bottles” it is still insisted that the words “ well stopped ” whenever they occur must be translated into “glass stopped;” a mode of expression which takes no more words than that for which it is substituted, while it is certainly more clear and definite. The whole force of this Preliminary Notice is that the words “well stopped” must be read “ glass stopped ” throughout the Pharmacopoeia; but the committee itself seems to forget this, and directs two out of the three collodions p. 117, and all the tinctures p. 299, to be kept in “ well-stopped ” bottles. In the case of the col- lodions the direction is not simply unnecessary, but will com- monly result in the gluing fast of the glass stopper. The supposed defects of these two captions were brought to the notice of the committee, but without effecting a change. Percolation, as described in the Preliminary Notices, is substantially unchanged, and the reader might infer that a lapse of ten years had left this important process without no- ticeable advancement. This, however, is not the true posi- tion of the committee, for, on referring to p. 151, a general formula for percolation in its application to the fluid extracts is found in detail. This formula is a modification of that pub- lished by Mr. Samuel Campbell, of Philadelphia, in the American Journal of Pharmacy for 1869, p. .385, and for 1870, p. 17. By this process Mr. Campbell claims that the medicinal properties of drugs can be practically extracted by a proportion of menstruum, or solvent, much smaller than that indicated by any previous experience. Hence this pro- cess attracted the immediate attention of many who were en- 10 gaged upon the important class of preparations to which it was applicable. The writer, among others, applied it with care, and with that prejudice which is apt to be excited by proposi- tions which, by largely saving labor and expense of material, greatly increase pecuniary profits. The process in the writer’s hands was, however, not favor- able in the character of the result. The exhaustions were found to be very inaccurate and imperfect, wdiile these im- perfections were often masked by the character of the men- struum employed, and by the deceptive appearances of rich- ness of color and density in the products. Saving of labor and increase of profit naturally hide many defects, and the process soon became popular, though occasionally discredited by pharmacists whose closeness of observation entitled their judgment and their results to respect. This process of Mr. Campbell the committee has adopted, but with the important modification that, whereas Mr. Campbell claims to have his sixteen troy ounces of the drug fairly represented in the first sixteen fluidounces of percolate, and therefore percolates no farther, the committee continues the percolation to twenty- four fluidounces, and evaporates the ten fluidounces last received to two fluidounces, and adds this to the fourteen fluidounces first received. This is a most important advance upon Mr. Campbell’s method, but yet, in the writer’s experi- ence and judgment, the committee’s process is very inadequate, and does not represent the knowledge on this subject at the date of its action. The Primary and Secondary Lists have been enriched by twenty-seven articles, and would not have been at all impov- erished, to say the least, by the omission of an equal number, yet only five articles were dismissed. That view or plan of “extending rather than abridging the scope of the work” which forbids the dismissing of such articles as Absinthium, Allium, Althea, Cataria, Coccus, Hsematoxylon, Matricaria, Salvia, Sambucus, Santalum, and Statice, from the Primary List, together with most of the articles of the Secondary List, does not seem to the writer to be in accordance with the condition of medical and pharmaceutical science at the date of this committee. 11 The committee of 1860 ventured so far as to dismiss thir- teen of the ancient incompetents of the Secondary List; hut the present committee, unable to withstand this sacrifice, have restored two articles then dismissed, as “ Substances added to the Materia Medica of the Pharmacopoeia.” These are the Flesh-colored Asclepias, and the Syriac Asclepias. What these particular “ miltweeds ” have done for the materia medica within the past ten years your reporter does not know. The only other addition to the Secondary List is Castanea. As far as the name is concerned, this also is a restoration. But, in reality, the Castanea dismissed by the committee of 1860 was the bark of the C. pumila or Chinquapin, while the Cas- tanea now added is the leaf of the C. vesca, or common chest- nut. This has, within the past ten years, been occasionally noticed as an efficient remedy in whooping-cough. The other additions to these Lists, which are only restora- tions—or the undoing of what the former committee did—are the readmission of Cinchona, -which was dismissed as a useless generic name, since all the useful varieties were separately de- scribed ; the readmission of Conium Seed or fruit, which the committee of 1860 made a great blunder in dismissing; and the readmission of Origanum, which, if important now, this importance has escaped notice in the current literature of the past decade. A very important advancement has been made by the com- mittee in the direction of greater precision of language in the officinal description of drugs. What, at first sight, would ap- pear to be but a mere change in the form of expression, or a mere multiplication of words, or technicalities, upon closer in- spection exhibits a far deeper meaning, and will contribute much toward precision and accuracy. As an illustration of a change, which, though apparently trivial and useless, is yet not so in reality, the word u saturation ” has, throughout the book, except in two or three instances, been changed for “ neu- tralization.” When it is remembered how the word “satura- tion ” is now applied in chemistry, the change will not appear trivial. On the other hand, the word “ sufficient ” seems to have found an Anglo-Saxon disfavor that is really trivial. With the exception of a few instances, where the enemy must have 12 been napping, it is ruthlessly eliminated, in favor of the word “enough;” bnt this only in certain positions of the phrase- ology, for, in the expression “ a sufficient quantity,” which occurs so much more frequently, it triumphantly holds its place. The descriptive notes of characteristics and tests, appended to the articles throughout the book, are much improved and extended, and those applying to articles newly introduced are as full and as effective as is practicable. The only serious er- ror in these is under the article Acidurn Carbolicum Impurum, p. 11. On next to the last line of the page it is stated that this substance “ should not be soluble in less than 20 per cent, of water, thus indicating that it is not an alkaline solution of carbolic acid.” This is probably intended to be Crooke’s test, which is, in effect, that it should not be soluble in less than five times its volume of water. Besides the extension in both the definitions and notes, several errors of the previous Pri- mary List are corrected in this new List. At the outset of this Primary List is noticeable the most conspicuous and most general of all the changes made by this committee. This is the change in nomenclature which, as the Preface states, has been made “in order to place the work in accord with the progress of chemical science.” Here the effort to hold back, and to be conservative, and yet to go on a little, very carefully, seems to have led the com- mittee into a jumble in which chemical science could see no accord. The frequent use, in the same paragraphs, of the old and new nomenclatures, often in their most abrupt contrasts, produces upon the writer the effect of a harsh discord, and must prove to be confusing to physicians and pharmacists; while to those familiar with the new nomenclature the effect must be absurd. This jumble, which pervades the whole book, has its culmination in such names as “ Tartrate of Anti- mony and Potassium.” Howhere is true conservatism more valuable than in an authoritative standard which should gov- ern the every-day practice of arts so important as medicine and pharmacy; and the frequent apparent success of ill-judged, half-way measures, adopted under the name of conservatism, shows how great a load of error can be carried by the little 13 giant truth. If this partial change proves to be an error of judgment of the committee, a weakening of the influence of the Pharmacopoeia is to he feared as a consequence. Within the sphere of the Pharmacopoeia, the new chemical nomencla- ture may he considered to he pretty well settled for the next decade, and it would have heen a manly policy for progress, to have adopted it entirely until a better one might he devel- oped. It has been well said that the workers in the fields of natural science must hold their facts and occupy their posi- tions as the nomadic Arabs do their tents, in readiness to pick up and move on at any time; and, if this he true, it indicates that neither the new nomenclature nor any other can he stable for the future, and that the question of stability need not therefore have embarrassed the committee, to prevent it from taking an advanced position for its decade. On the other hand, the committee might—certainly with safety, and proba- bly more wisely—have decided to retain the past nomenclature for another decade, until the committee’s constituency might, from other sources, have become more familiar with that ad- vanced knowledge of which the new nomenclature is but the natural language. But, to adopt neither, yet attempt both, impresses your reporter as a grave error of judgment. After this great change in nomenclature, it seems puerile to refer to others which, but for this, would be very conspicu- ous. The words “ folia ” and “ leaves,” which ten years ago were changed to “folium” and “ leaf,” so as to be in harmo- nious uniformity with “ radix,” “ root,” “ semen,” “ seed,” etc., are now changed back again to the plural, while “ almond,” “cubeb,” “fig,” “nutmeg,” “bone,” “egg,” “prune,” etc., are retained in the singular. The words root and bark are omitted from the English translation of many of the officinal titles, and we now read “ Quercus alba, white-oak. The inner bark of Quercus alba.” “ Rubus, blackberry. The bark of the root of Rubus Canadensis, and of Rubus villosus; ” and “ Apocynum cannabinum, Indian hemp. The root of Apo- cynum cannabinum.” This brings them into harmonious accord or uniformity with “ Cinchona,” “ Ipecacuanha,” “ Jalap,” “ Valerian,” etc., but the changes do not appear to advantage when, in the subsequent formulas, we read, “ Take 14 of Blackberry, in fine powder; ” “ Boil the Wliite-oak,” etc. In “ Slippery-elm bark,” however, the word “bark” is re- tained in the English name, probably through oversight. The change, or rather the exchange of the names of the officinal alums, seems to have been unnecessary,.and, if so, is unfortunate and bad, since it introduces confusion while in no way promot- ing accuracy, and simply caters to a common usage which is based upon inaccuracy. The name alum was not commonly applied to any thing but potassa-alum until after ammonia-alum had been more cheaply made from gas-liquor. Potassa-alum has always been the type and file-leader of the class of alums, as ethylic alcohol is of the class of alcohols, until the committee degraded it and promoted its younger usurping competitor. Had the committee promoted fusel oil, or glycerin, to the name of “ alcohol,” and degraded ethylic alcohol to the ranks in chemistry, rating it by its chemical constitution simply, this would have been but an exaggerated instance of a similar change. All the past medical reputation of “ alum” belongs properly to potassa-alum, the ammonia-alum being compara- tively untried till introduced into the last British Pharmaco- poeia as “ Alumen,” to the exclusion of potassa-alum. A general view of the next subdivision of the Pharmaco- poeia, and the most important part of it, namely, the “ Prepa- rations,” show7s it to be, except in the points already noticed, mainly unchanged. The same array of long and yet insuffi- cient, and now also long obsolete, formulas for Calomel, Cinchonia, Quinia and Morphia salts, etc., is still found, though the advisability of transferring all such to the Materia Medica List, with appropriate descriptions and tests, has been long and earnestly urged by many competent judges here, and has been illustrated by the example of foreign Pharmacopoeias. It is really very difficult to know where to draw the line be- tween processes appropriate to practical pharmacy and those which are not; but it must be drawn somewhere by the au- thority of the Pharmacopoeia, and to do this with the least practical inconsistency is what should be aimed at. Ilyper- eriticism never ends, and can neither be well defined nor avoided ; but, to refuse logical inferences, and resist reasonable conclusions on account of this, cannot be wise. 15 It is to be regretted that saffron, an excellent corrigent and stomachic, is omitted from such preparations as vinegar of opium, tincture of rhubarb and senna, and compound tincture of cinchona. The general appreciation of its value, in the lat- ter preparation especially, will not be likely to support this change. An error in the process for vinegar of squill, which was pointed out soon after the revision of 1860, and has been re- peatedly noticed by various authorities since, remains uncor- rected, although the process has been rewritten by this com- mittee. The process for purified chloroform has been rewritten and considerably changed, and the standard of purity has been lowered from “ s. g. 1.490 to 1.494 ” to “ 1.480.” ' Perhaps, all that the writer should say, in regard to this change, is to enter an earnest protest against lowering the standard; and that, from a considerable experience in the purification of chloro- form, the old formula was a very good one, and the changes entirely unnecessary. The officinal dried alum is now directed to be made from ammonia-alum; the maximum temperature is lowered from 450° to 400°; and the dried ammonia-alum is left with more water in it than the dried potassa-alum, formerly officinal. These changes are taken from .the British Pharmacopoeia, and therefore the committee adds that high authority to its own against the individual judgment of your reporter. The process for benzoate of ammonia is taken nearly ver- batim from the British Pharmacopoeia, but the appended descriptive note is much more full than that of the British Pharmacopoeia.' The reasons for the introduction of this arti- cle into the Pharmacopoeia are not known. Bromide of ammonium, p. 83, is an important addition, and the process appears to be a very good one as an outline for any one who wants to make it. The last paragraph on the page is not clear—or at least is not understood by the writer— for, if no greater precision is attained than that indicated in the process, there will be more than two-tenths of a grain of moisture left in the salt, and then the seventeen grains of nitrate silver will decompose the whole of the bromide, and 16 the further addition of nitrate-of-silver solution will cause no cloud. Purified chloride of ammonium, p, 84, is also a useful addi- tion, but the process is defective in adding the water of am- monia to a hot solution of the chloride, and in continuing the heat before filtration. Upon the large scale, at least, this does not accomplish the object, and the preparation will not, in a large majority of instances, stand the test by tannic acid, as given in the paragraph of tests. lodide of ammonium is another important addition. The article on valerianate of ammonia, p. 85, has been rewritten with no perceptible advantage; but the note of de- scription and tests, which is far more important, and is defi- cient in not identifying the separated acid, is unchanged. In the process for oxysulphuret of antimony, p. 88, 7th and Bth lines from the foot, the phraseology is changed deci- dedly for the better. Under carbonic-acid water, p. 90, an important paragraph is added to prevent insidious contamination with copper and lead, though the tests given would detect these metals as well as others if present. Under water of ammonia, p. 91, the phraseology is altered for the worse on the 15 th and 17th lines from the top, since, if the phrase be grammatically construed, the “ glass tube,” and not the distant “ two-pint bottle,” is described as containing the water. Such points, however, would be surely hyper- critical, except when they are the only changes, and changed from a better phraseology to a worse. Creasote water, p. 94, should be filtered through a wet fil- ter to prevent the passage of oily particles. Under distilled water, p. 95, the new Pharmacopoeia ad- heres to the phraseology of the old, wdrere the direction is, to “ distil two pints, using a tin or glass condenser, and throw them away.” Query, what is to be thrown away % This peculiar phraseology was pointed out to the committee, so that it must be concluded that they consider it correct as it stands. The processes for subcarbonate and snbnitrate of bismuth, pp. 103, 104, are somewhat changed and much improved in several points. 17 Tlie process for animal charcoal, p. 109, is amended ma- terially by the direction, before omitted, to “ heat it to red- ness, and, when cool, keep it in well-stopped bottles,” but, unfortunately, this important amendment needs further amendment, for, unless the words “ out of contact of air ” be added after “ heated to redness,” the charcoal may be burned up. The name of “ Ceratum adipis, cerate of lard,” is now changed to “Ceratum, cerate,” p. 109. And Unguentum adipis, ointment of lard,” to “ Unguentum, ointment,” p. 326. At the last revision, these were, with rather doubtful pro- priety, changed from simple cerate, and simple ointment, to lard cerate, and lard ointment. But now, apparently to get them into harmony with “ Syrupus, syrup,” and “ Mel, honey,” they are again changed, so that the adjective, or qualifying, or class name, stands by itself. But, as the other parallel class distinctions, such as decoction, infusion, solution, spirit, tincture, etc., could not with propriety be used in this way, the discord is still as great as ever. The physician, who follows the Pharmacopoeia, but sends to a pharmacist who does not know it critically, may have his prescription returned to him as incomplete. The change seems altogether uncalled for, unnecessary, and unwarranted. The class “ Chart*,” comprising two articles, is new. All the blistering and mustard papers now commonly used are, so far as your reporter’s information and inquiries go, untrust- worthy, and, where such things fail, valuable time is often lost. The cantharides paper is taken, with slight modifica- tion, from the British Pharmacopoeia; and the mustard paper is probably that of Mr. Crew, or something like it. If from these sources, and materially modified, the modifications may make them keep well, as the original preparations do not. At best they may be best classed with those “ doubtful novel- ties of pharmaceutical science ” which the Preface tells us the Pharmacopoeia should not pander to. The Pharmacopoeia cannot be followed in keeping twm out of the three collodions, p. 117, in “ well-stopped,” that is glass- stoppered bottles, unless an almost impossible degree of care be taken not to get the collodion upon the neck of the bottle or 18 stopper to glue tlie latter in. A cork, when glued in, can be dug out in pieces and a new one substituted; with glass this is more difficult. The previous errors in tlie process for the confection of senna are properly corrected, and the formula and process are now unexceptionable. The formula and process for digitalin are introduced with slight modification from the British Pharmacopoeia, In the officinal names of several of the alcoholic extracts, the characteristic word “ alcoholic ” is left off, as in those of aco- nite, arnica, colocynth, digitalis, etc., thus making the names harmonize with those of the watery extracts, while they are really equally alcoholic with those of belladonna, conium, and hyoscyamus, where the word alcoholic had to be retained to dis- tinguish between the more feeble watery extract of the fresh plant and the stronger alcoholic extract of the dry plant. Even to physicians and pharmacists, who are pretty well edu- cated in the materia medica, this distinction has not been fully learned and appreciated in the past, and, now that a new and serious element of confusion has been introduced, it will be fortunate if grave mistakes do not occur. Extract of American hemp is introduced, and is, so far as the writer knows, entirely new to the professions of medicine and pharmacy. A single monograph, written by Dr. H. C. Wood, Jr., of Philadelphia, contains all the knowdedge on the subject; and, adopting the principle laid down in the Preface, the new Pharmacopoeia follows in the wake of this single beam of “ advancing knowledge,” to gather it up and hoard it for use. The formula for compound extract of colocynth is very much improved by taking purified aloes and an increased pro- portion of cardamom, but is still defective in mixing the sepa- rate powders instead of combining them by heat so that the soap, resins, and aromatic, may unite and form a compound rather than a mixture. The extract of jalap, p. 143, still contains the expensive, inert, useless, and very troublesome watery extract, which more than ten years ago was taken in boluses large enough and repeated often enough to determine its character, and 19 that by one of the members of the present committee. The committee seems persistently to refuse this as “ advancing knowledge ; ” but in the parallel case of the extract of podo- phyllum, p. 146, gives a very much improved formula and process excluding this watery extract. The extract of Calabar bean, p. 145, is an important addi- tion, hut the substance is taken in too coarse a powder, and the exhaustion is insufficient. Under the important sub-head of fluid extracts, a model process of percolation is first given. At the last revision mod- el processes were rejected, first, upon the ground that in a book of reference, like the Pharmacopoeia, each article re- ferred to should be found complete; and, again, as a more intimate knowledge of the characteristic peculiarities and dif- ferences in drugs was obtained by investigation and experi- ence, it was considered that no model process could be equally applicable to any considerable number of substances. In- creasing knowledge and experience seem to have justified these conclusions of the last committee, yet the present one has reversed the action. The revision of 1860 contains 25 fluid extracts, all of which are retained in this revision except that of conium. Of the 24 retained, 10 contained sugar. This ingredient proved objectionable in practice, and the writer among others soon found that where sugar was desirable glycerin was far better, and these results were freely published, and glycerin was fully tried, though not always with the expected advantages. Nev- ertheless, wherever sugar had been considered indispensable, there seemed no doubt but that glycerin was better, and the writer everywhere advocated the substitution, but never its extension to other fluid extracts. Within the past two years, the practice of pharmacists and the usage by physicians both seem to indicate that, where glycerin is not absolutely neces- sary, it is objectionable. Such views are, however, not ac- cepted by this committee, for, in following out their modifica- tion of Mr. Campbell’s plan for the officinal fluid extracts, they have not only substituted glycerin for the sugar in the 10 old fluid extracts which contained sugar, but have introduced it into 7 of the remaining 14 old fluid extracts after ten years’ 20 experience liad proved it unnecessary, leaving now only 7 of the original 2d -without it. Then the committee introduce 22