Yes. The traditional definition of comprise is essentially 'to be composed of', so it doesn't really work as a substitute for compose. According to the traditional rule, one could say that the fifty states compose the United States and that the United States comprises the fifty states, but not that the United States is comprised of fifty states. But people have been using "comprised of" for over two hundred years, and I don't think there's any going back. In fact, I'd say that at least 90 percent of the time when I see some form of comprise in unedited writing, it's in the traditionally incorrect use.
Personally, I would have left "comprised of" in there. I figure if 90 percent of our authors (who nearly all have PhDs) use it in the so-called incorrect way, then it's not worth changing. But what bugs me is when editors seize on usage shibboleths like this one, dutifully correcting them all, while passing over more fundamental semantic and structural problems.
