LEE BARKER WALTON 53 



by tabs and colored cards representing systematic divisions, 

 geographical distribution, type specimens, etc., is at once 

 manifest. Furthermore no space is given for noting the 

 authority for identification, date collected, etc., name of 

 collector, etc., for all of which data provision should be 

 made. 



The "Curators Catalogue" may be criticized on this 

 same basis. Moreover in a catalogue, the chief purpose 

 of which is that of a reference or finding catalogue, there 

 seems every reason for arranging the cards in alphabetical 

 order in preference to classifying on a systematic basis. 

 Hoyle, himself, in noting some objections to the decimal 

 system proposed by Petrie in Nature, mentions the fact 

 that "no specialist is ever satisfied with any other special- 

 ist's work." Furthermore unless arranged according to 

 the alphabet as suggested under the Reference Catalogue, 

 it would be of no value to the public. The cards adopted 

 should naturally be of a standard size since odd sizes can- 

 not be perfectly cut by reason of the expensive machinery 

 used. Ordinary 'guide cards' would be much better than 

 the 'genus' and 'family cards.' 



Dorsey, '99^ reviewed the method of cataloguing used 

 in the Field Columbian Museum of Chicago. As sug- 

 gested in a preceding footnote, this appears to be more or 

 less of an heterogeneous arrangement of cards, books, and 

 manila envelopes, which could be much simplified. 



Walton, :04, published a brief outline of the present 

 paper noting the division into (a) The Accession Cata- 

 logue, (b) The Department Catalogue, and (c) The 

 Reference Catalogue, as well as suggesting the general 

 scope and methods of filing the cards employed in each. 



Wray, :05, called attention to the adoption of the card 

 system in the Perak Museum of the Federated Malay 

 States, a result brought about by the unsatisfactory nature 

 of the book method of cataloguing. A single type of card 

 (3x5 inch) was used. This contained the following 

 data: 'Accession No.,' 'Date when received,' 'Place in 

 Museum,' 'Description of Specimen,' 'Where procured,' 

 'How obtained,' 'Presented by,' 'Bequeathed by,' 'Pur- 

 chased from,' and 'Collected by.' Duplicate cards were 



