VI. 



Bibliographical Reform and the " Zoological 



Record." 



IN previous communications which I have made on the subject of 

 Bibliographical Reform, principal emphasis has been laid upon 

 such parts of the proposed system as are essentially new, to the 

 exclusion of certain other features which are already realised, and 

 which consequently seem almost self-evident. The task which we 

 are undertaking is a reform in the truest sense. We seek merely to 

 perfect what already exists ; and, if we have placed before ourselves a 

 certain organisation as the ideal towards which we are striving, it 

 must not be supposed that we desire to cut loose from existing biblio- 

 graphical undertakings, or to rival them. Just the contrary is the 

 case. The large body of disinterested zoologists, of whom I have 

 become the rather unwilling spokesman, seek above all to attain the 

 closest possible harmony of action with all those who are now engaged 

 in this arduous but necessary bibliographical work. 



It is in this spirit that we now approach the Zoological Record, and 

 offer it the support which an international organisation can give. But 

 before I turn to the nature of this offer, I shall be obliged to say a few 

 words in regard to the imperfections in the present Record. This is 

 not an easy task. To one who has followed, as I have done, the 

 history of this enterprise, who knows from numerous friendships 

 among the Recorders the personal sacrifices that have been made for 

 its success, who knows also the financial burden which the Zoological 

 Society has assumed in its behalf, it is difficult to criticise frankly the 

 product of that devotion. In point of fact, during my recent visit to 

 England I shrank more than once from repeating what I had heard 

 from all sides. I should not touch upon it even now, if I were not 

 able to follow the statement with a definite proposition which it is 

 believed will remedy those defects. 



In the course of the agitation of this question, which I have 

 carried on continuously for several years, I have, naturally been able to 

 collect a large number of opinions in regard to the need for a thorough 

 reform. I speak, therefore, with a certain degree of confidence in 

 stating that the Record is found in practice to be sadly inadequate. 

 If anyone doubts the disinterestedness of the opinions thus gathered, 

 I should merely point to the various notes in Natural Science, in 

 Nature, in the American Naturalist, and elsewhere, written for the most 

 part without my knowledge. They all assume the insufficiency of the 

 existing bibliographical means. Indeed, no one has thought it 



