Weighing the factors involved, the definitions have been expanded in some fields, including more 

 specific directions than was typical of the mimeographed editions used previously by the CBCC coders. 



When a coder uses certain symbols constantly, he eventually becomes so familiar with their 

 use and limitations that he needs no longer to refer to the Key nor even consult the definition in the 

 Code. While this may lead to overconfidence which may in turn lead to coding errors, it is reasonable 

 that the coder who has developed familiarity with the symbols would prefer having those symbols listed 

 with definitions of one word or the fewest possible words. A given coder, however, never uses all of 

 the Code's symbols with consistent frequency; some symbols are rarely used. Further, although coding 

 has been generally assigned in accordance to coders' special biological fields of interest, this is not 

 always possible and coders constantly must use symbols with whose definitions and use they are less 

 familiar. It is certain that a beginning coder finds helpful having a relatively complete and distinguish- 

 ing definition for each symbol, including basic specifications for its use, with the symbol in the Code; 

 anyone examining the Code lists, in considering their appropriateness for other coding projects, should 

 also find advantageous more complete definitions of the symbols. 



Whether a proper balance has been struck between the completeness of definitions in the Code 

 and the explanations of the Key, can not be certain. It is probable that, from the present Code, each 

 coder or coding project might want to extract the items used most frequently and list them with defini- 

 tions of the desired brevity. 



Appendix B further discusses the published Code's character and adaptability, as well as CBCC 

 problems and ambitions related to the Biology Code and its coding procedures. 



13 



