i8 95 . BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFORM. 337 



affiliated with this central committee a score of associate members 

 distributed among all the zoological centres of the country, and ready 

 to bring the matter before the notice of all the local societies and to 

 solicit their support. In general the Zoological Society of France 

 " is resolved to aid this movement in every way possible." It is at 

 present printing a report of its vice-president, Mr. E. L. Bouvier, on 

 this subject, and will bring it to the notice of all its members and urge 

 them to support the movement. The French Entomological Society 

 may also be counted upon to aid in finding subscribers for the Bureau's 

 publication, including, of course, the Record. 



It must not be supposed that this proposition implies abandoning 

 the Zoological Record ; that would be a pity. In the first place, an 

 injustice would be done to old subscribers to the Record, who have 

 purchased it presuming that their volumes would form part of a 

 continuous series. Secondly, it would be unjust to the Zoological 

 Society, whose stock of back volumes would thereby become 

 depreciated. Thirdly, it would have many inconveniences for the 

 new journal, which would have to win these subscribers afresh, which 

 would lose the backing and the control of the Zoological Society, and 

 which could not, therefore, give an adequate guarantee of permanence. 

 The founding of a new journal would, I think, be justified only as a 

 last resource. 



A better principle is to change the existing state of things as 

 little as possible — a reform, no revolution. The editorship and the 

 entire control of the Record should remain as heretofore with the 

 Zoological Society. The English language might be conceded, and, 

 indeed, nothing need be altered save such things as might be specified 

 in a definite agreement to be drawn up in advance. 



The principal change necessitated by the federation would be 

 merely a slight further step in a direction already tacitly accepted. I 

 should surely offend no sensibilities in asserting that, as a morphological 

 review, the existing Record is, save a few exceptional chapters, utterly 

 useless. For systematic zoology, on the other hand, the Naples 

 Jahresbericht is of absolutely no value, and the systematic notes given 

 with certain chapters, e.g., Crustacea, are, to my mind at least, mere 

 disfigurements. Let, then, each Record leave to the other that part 

 of the field which it is the more competent to perform. This is an 

 economy ; and we are seeking for economies. 



The only further change which I need mention here is a change 

 in the manner of publication, so that the two existing Records shall 

 be united and form merely two parts of one complete Record. The 

 Recorders would prepare the manuscript as heretofore, observing, 

 however, the restriction just noted. This would then be turned over 

 to the common publishing firm which would use it for the systematic 

 part of the Record, and the manuscript coming from Naples for the 

 morphological part. There is no reason why the name Zoological 

 Record should not be kept for at least the English purchasers. The 



2 B 



