(_See_ p. 50.)
After the reading of Mr. Bishop's paper there was some discussion in
regard to the great desirability of having published each year a list of
the dissertations presented to American universities. On the motion of
Dr. B. C. Steiner it was resolved that a committee of three be appointed
by the chair to consider the question of the section taking steps to
secure such an annual list. Mr. Fletcher appointed Dr. B. C. Steiner, W.
M. Smith and C. W. Andrews to form the committee.
Mr. A. G. S. JOSEPHSON wished that a complete bibliography of university
theses could be made.
The chairman announced that the election of officers for the next year
would take place, and called for nominations.
Mr. Josephson nominated Mr. A. S. Root for chairman. Mr. Root was
elected. Dr. Canfield nominated for secretary Mr. W. M. Smith, and Mr.
Smith nominated Miss Emma A. Hawley. Mr. Smith was elected.
After the election there followed a general discussion of the topics
presented during the afternoon, those receiving special notice being
classification, notation, the use of call numbers, department libraries
and university theses.
In the discussion Mr. FLETCHER said:
My thought about dispensing with shelf-marks in the card and other
catalogs (not really my thought, for I had it from one of our leading
librarians, who has not, however, put it in practice himself) is that
the great difficulties connected with the changing of shelf-marks in
catalogs when books are reclassified may be avoided by placing on the
card only the accession number (in case of a set the accession number of
the first volume), and then maintaining a key, consisting of a book
closely ruled in double columns, where for each book in the library the
shelf-mark is written in pencil against the accession number and changed
whenever the book is renumbered. Such a scheme could not be
satisfactorily applied in a library where the looking-up of the
shelf-mark is involved in the calling for books in most cases. I am
prepared to favor it only where (as is now the case in our own library)
a majority of the calls for books are made orally and answered by the
attendant without reference to shelf-mark. In our case these calls
amount to seven-eighths of all the calls, and in addition to this it
should be said that at least one-half the books drawn under our
open-shelf system are drawn without any "call" at all, so that we may
say, that if we had the "key" system it would come into play for perhaps
one-sixteenth of the books drawn. In libraries of moderate circulation
like our college and university libraries, and (for all but certain
classes which are most used) even in the large public libraries, it
seems to me that the key plan may work well. Of course the key if
subjected to constant use would be difficult and expensive to maintain,
owing to wear and tear. We should not fail to observe that three
separate and distinct features of modern library progress are each and
all working against the necessity, _i.e._, tending to minimize the
necessity, of shelf-marks in the catalog.
These are, first, the open-shelf system; second, minute classification
and alphabetical arrangement in classes, and third, book-card charging
systems. Without enlarging upon these points, I would like to suggest
them to you as worthy of consideration.
Mr. HODGES described briefly the classification of the scientific books
at Harvard. First, the serial publications of the broad learned
societies, the societies taking cognizance of all branches of learning,
are brought together arranged alphabetically by country and city.
Secondly, the general scientific serials and the special scientific
serials, however published, are arranged in a group; the general coming
first, the others following according to subject, astronomy,
mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural history, zoology, botany, etc.
When suggesting the separation of the serials in pure science from the
handbooks at the very outset of his work at Harvard, Mr. Hodges urged
that the serials constitute a record literature to which the
investigator must refer when carrying on original work, while the
handbooks are used by the pedagog when preparing for his classwork. The
general designation for the learned society group is L. Soc.; for the
scientific serials, Sci. The handbooks on physics are in a group
designated Phys.; the general treatises by Phys. 357-360. A treatise
published in 1892 is marked Phys. 358-92; another of the same year, by
Phys. 358.92.3.
Mr. ROOT said: It may possibly have interest in this connection to note
that the catalog of the University of Göttingen, which was established
about 1750, has the feature which has been mentioned here as
characteristic of the Harvard system. The books are grouped in large
classes with an abbreviated heading, with minute sub-classification.
Just when this system was introduced I do not know, but I suppose it to
have been in use a hundred years or so, which I judge to be a longer
life than Mr. Fletcher is willing to allow to the D. C.
Interesting remarks were made by several others, notably Mr. Andrews,
Dr. Steiner and Dr. Canfield. It is to be regretted that the revision of
their remarks has not been received in time for publication.
OLIVE JONES, _Secretary_.