S. NOMENCLATURE.

Kahn, Joseph, reports the opinion that the U. S. P. titles, if long, should be simplified. Proc. New York Pharm. Assoc. 1911, p. 84. Remington, Joseph P., is reported as suggesting that changes or modifications of the Pharmacopeia should not involve an alteration of the nomenclature, which would entail trouble, expense, and confusion with respect to labels. Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter, 1911, v. SO, December 11, p. 28H. See also Am. Druggist, 1911, v. 59, P 336.

An editorial (Chem, & Drug, 1911, v. 79, p. 18), commenting on change in the Digest of Comments, in the spelling of the Pharmacopeial title "syrep" to "sirup." expresses the hope that this does t mean that the United States Pharmacoperis is to adopt the new

Diekman, George C., reports that all therapeutically suggestive titles are to be dropped from the N. F., and in case where the preparation is retained, other more appropriate names will be selected.Proc. New York Pharm. Assoc. 1911, p. 91.

Gehe & Co. (Handelsbericht, 1911, pp. 50-51), in commenting on the Ph. Ross. VI, point out that the Latin nomenclature corresponds very closely with that employed in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, with perhaps the single exception that magnesium is designated magnium. See also Am. J. Pharm. 1911, v. 83, p. 28.

Bettink, H. Wefers, discusses the nomenclature of the Ph. Germ. V and calls attention to some of the titles that differ from those included in the Ph. Ndl. IV.-Pharm. Weekblad, 1911, v. 48, p. 213.

True, Rodney H., in discussing the botanical nomenclature of the Ph. Germ. V, deplores the fact that botanists generally are provincial in their ideas and unwilling to develop or accept a system of nomenclature that would do away with the present confusion regarding botanical names. Bull. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 1911, v. 6, p. 184.

Beringer, George M., notes that in the official titles of the Ph. Germ. V many of the old time-honored Latinized vernacular names are retained and such medieval titles as "Borax," "Cerussa," "Lithargyrum," and "Minium," still appear in this Twentieth Century revision.-Proc. New Jersey Pharm. Assoc. 1911, p. 76. Also Am. J. Pharm. 1911, v. 83, p. 327.

Wilbert, M. I., points out that the introduction to the Ph. Germ. V states that, where the scientific designation for a new remedy is more convenient or in general use, it has been adopted; in other cases the protected name was chosen for the title followed by the chemical name and the protected name also appears beneath the scientific title as a subtitle, to indicate that the protected preparation must in every respect fulfil the requirements set forth in the Pharmacopoeia.—Am. J. Pharm. 1911, v. 83, p. 129.

Kroeber, Ludwig, calls attention to the difficulties involved in the relabeling of shop containers with the official Ph. Germ. V nonproprietary titles.-Apoth.-Ztg. 1911, v. 26, p. 403. See also Pharm. Ztg. 1911, v. 56, p. 16.

An editorial (Pharm. Ztg. 1911, v. 56, pp. 571-572, 581-582) discusses proprietary rights in trade-marked names for medicines in Germany.

Kahn, Joseph, reports the recommendation that synonyms be reintroduced into the U. S. P.-Proc. New York Pharm. Assoc. 1911, p. 85.

Amos, F. J., thinks that synonyms help but very little and are often misleading, very inconsistent, unscientific, and require no little time to learn. He thinks druggists should endeaver to discourage the use of synonyms and that in the course of time they can be eliminated.-Proc. Georgia Pharm. Assoc. 1911, p. 94–97.

Beringer, George M., points out that an extensive list of synonyms and less used names is one of the important. tables included in the appendix of the Ph. Germ. V.-Am. J. Pharm. 1911, v. 83, p. 335.

4. COST AND SIZE.

Rusby, H. H., dilating upon the need of money for pharmacopoeial work, urges an increase in the price of the book by sums of 25 cents, as required for the purpose.-Pharm. Era, 1911, v. 44, p. 141.

Caspari, Chas., jr., states that unfortunately the U. S. P., Ninth Revision, will perhaps be larger than the Eighth Revision and larger than the Pharmacopoeia of any other country, in spite of the large number of deletions and the efforts made to reduce its size.-Bull. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 1911, v. 6, p. 613.

Wood, H. C., jr., suggests that the Pharmacopoeia be made as heretofore to meet the needs of pharmacists and physicians, and not to please chemists, manufacturers, drug examiners, and others.— Oil, Paint, and Drug Reporter, 1911, v. 80, Dec. 11, p. 28H.

An editorial (N. York M. J. 1911, v. 94, p. 489), in commenting on the proposed list of drugs to which State board examinations for medical license shall be confined, expresses the belief that this solution of the problem of the size of the Pharmacopoeia is a happy one. Eaton, H. E., reports that a chemist was in a town of 5,000 people and wanted to look up something in connection with his work. He went into all five drug stores of the town to look at a late edition of the U. S. P. or Disp. and could not find one.-Proc. Iowa Pharm. Assoc. 1911, p. 151.

Cheatham, T. A., asserts that many of the druggists of Georgia are not progressive enough to buy a Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary, and are still adhearing to the old formulas.-Proc. Georgia Pharm. Assoc. 1911, p. 36.

5. PUBLICITY.

An editorial (Drug Circ. 1911, v. 55, p. 288) states that, so far as present indications are a guide, the Committee of Revision as a body and the members as individuals have shown a decided preference for silence with regard to their work. Unnecessary secrecy, it has been agreed by the members of the committee, is not becoming in connection with work of such a public character as is the revision of the legal drug standards.

An editorial (Meyer Bros. Drug. 1911, v. 32, p. 131) comments on what constitutes unnecessary secrecy in the revision of the U. S. P., and asserts that the resolution adopted by the U. S. P. Convention in regard to publicity is merely a recommendation, and not an instruction.

An editorial (Bull. Pharm. 1911, v. 25, p. 2) comments on H. W. Wiley's utterance on the subject of publicity as of particular significance, and adds that his position is eminently sound. See also Nat. Druggist, 1911, v. 41, p. 80.

An editorial note (N. A. R. D. Notes, 1911, v. 12, p. 904), commenting on the evident noncompliance with the U. S. P. Convention instruction to give publicity to the progress of the work of revision, expresses doubt as to whether the instruction has been forgotten or neglected, or whether it was in the nature of a political promise, and concludes that a statement on this subject from the committee to the pharmaceutical press of the country would undoubtedly be welcome.

Schimmel & Co. (Semi-Annual Report, Oct. 1911, pp. 109–110) emphasize the desirability of submitting the draft of the Pharmacopoeia to public comment so that incorrect statements might be rectified before publication of the book. They quote Kobert, who, in criticizing the Ph. Germ. V, says that if the mystery-mongering which was unfortunately still regarded as necessary in the preliminary work of the Pharmacopoeia were done away with once and for all, it would be desirable for critical as well as for other reasons.

Wilbert, M. I., points out that the British Pharmaceutical Codex Revision Committee is regularly publishing suggested new formulæ and alterations with the request that they be reviewed by pharmacists, and that criticisms and further suggestions be forwarded to the office of the committee.-Am. J. Pharm. 1911, v. 83, p. 130.

An editorial (Chem. & Drug. 1911, v. 79, p. 351), commenting on the progress of British pharmacopoeial revision, notes that the committee has invited criticisms of its work by public discussions, and that it has availed itself of the suggestions received.

Kahn, Joseph, reports the recommendation that public notice of all proposals for changes in the Pharmacopoeia be given in the pharmaceutical press before adoption.-Proc. New York Pharm. Assoc. 1911, p. 84.

Remington, Joseph P., announces that the Committee on Revision has decided for the first time in the history of pharmacopoeial work to give partial publicity to the work in progress.-Meyer Bros. Drug. 1911, v. 32, p. 297.

The Kings County Pharmaceutical Society adopted a resolution commending the publicity given the work of the Committee of Revision. Pharm. Era, 1911, v. 44, p. 502. See also Bull. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 1911, v. 6, p. 608.

An editorial (N. A. R. D. Notes, 1911, v. 12, p. 1469), in commenting on the list of articles to be included in the U. S. P., 9th revision, states that up to the present time only the names of the articles have been published, and expresses the belief that the requirements for standards and tests will undoubtedly soon follow.

Caspari, Chas., jr., expresses the belief that the publicity given the list of admissions and deletions would bring out expressions of opinion in time to remedy errors.-Bull. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 1911, v. 6, p. 612.

An editorial (D.-A. Apoth.-Ztg. 1911-12, v. 32, p. 119), in commenting on the preliminary publication of formulas to be included in the National Formulary, commends the action of the committee, and points out that this action should tend to disarm much of the unnecessary criticism that has heretofore appeared after the publication of one or the other of the official standards.

Beringer, George M., in order to give the desired publicity to the work of the committee on standards for unofficial drugs and chemical products, requests the pharmaceutical press to present the matter and asks that any suggestions as to standards to be adopted be forwarded to him.-Pharm. Era, 1911, v. 44, p. 4.

6. TIME OF PUBLICATION.

An editorial (Drug. Circ. 1911, v. 55, p. 163) states that, barring accidents and unforeseen complications, the new U. S. P. will be on the press before the expiration of half the time it took to get its immediate predecessor ready for the printer.

Remington, Joseph P., states that if he knew when the Pharmacopoeia would be ready he would be more pleased than anybody else to make the knowledge public property.-Pharm. Era, 1911, v. 44, p. 498.

An editorial (Bull. Pharm. 1911, v. 25, p. 4) notes that H. W. Wiley has expressed the opinion that the ninth revision of the Pharmacopoeia may be brought out in May, 1912. It adds that he is new to pharmacopoeial work and may be reckoning without his host.

An editorial (Drug. Circ. 1911, v. 55, p. 288) states that we are to have our new Pharmacopoeia next year. So at least we have been promised by. the powers that be. That leaves but little time for consideration to be given by critics to proposed changes or additions, to say nothing of time for the consideration of criticisms by the Committee of Revision.

Xrayser II thinks that all the omens point to a reissue of the U.S. P. before the new Ph. Brit. makes its appearance, and asks if there is no inducement which can be dangled before the General Medical Council. Chem. & Drug. 1911, v. 79, p. 413.

An editorial (Drug. Circ. 1911, v. 55, p. 342), commenting on a report of expenses incurred for pharmacopoeial work, applies the rule of three to the items of expense of ten years ago, with similar items for the present decade, and concludes that copies of the ninth revision of the United States Pharmacopoeia should be ready for distribution about January 1, 1913.