REPORT ON THE U. S. PHARMACOPOEIA

Note on Rhubarb, for 1869., Note on Collodion, Liquor Opii CompositusIt now, therefore, becomes the duty of your reporter, on his own behalf, to offer the following review of the Pharmacopoeia, based upon his own practice and judgment. To give the reasons and arguments for the changes suggested would involve too much time and labor, and would extend this report beyond pro per limits. The utmost that can be undertaken is to give some prominent reason or argument, whenever this can be done in very few words.The first suggestion to be made is whether a revision, or at least a partial revision, of the Pharmacopoeia should not be made at shorter intervals than ten years. Good reasons are so numer ous on both sides of this question that it may be difficult to de cide it aright, but your reporter inclines to the belief that at least a partial revision should be more frequently made.The time is approaching, if not now come, when it will be wise to provide for the expenses incident to the revision of the Pharmacopoeia. It would be comparatively easy to defray the expenses of the Conventions by assessment upon the bodies rep resented in it. But the much heavier expenses of the Commit tee of Final Revision and Publication are not so easily met. If, as in the past, the members of that committee who are relied on to perform the labor are named from one locality, there is dan ger that the Pharmacopoeia may be unduly local in its character and influence, whilst if members go from a distance to attend these meetings, the loss of time and the expense are too great to be contributed by those best qualified to do the duty. The authors of any copyright Commentary upon the Pharmacopoeia are the only persons who get any adequate compensation for their labors in connection with it, and such need not necessarily serve in the committee at all. In regard to the future of the Pharmacopoeia this subject deserves earnest attention.It is suggested that the general principles and plan, and some