korstian's classification of forestry literature 205 



classification is to render all the material in the library as quickly and 

 fully available as possible. This requires two things : First, that the 

 scheme shall be logical and as detailed as the needs of the particular 

 library demand ; and second, that the call numbers shall be as short and 

 simple as is practicable. 



Now whether a forestry classification is or is not logical, from the 

 forester's viewpoint, is not for a mere librarian to determine. Never- 

 theless I should like to make a few suggestions on the more outward 

 phases of the question. Why should Forest by-products, .44 in the 

 proposed scheme, be put in the same section with lumbering, instead of 

 under the section on technology? Certainly the chemistry involved, 

 if nothing else, would make it possible to place it under technology, 

 and the already overcrowded condition of the lumbering section would 

 make it advisable. Then Mr. Korstian has already separated Logging 

 engineering from Forest engineering, placing the former under Lum- 

 bering (see his division .6). Why should not Camp management (see 

 .66) likewise go under Lumbering? The lumberman at least would 

 look for it there, as naturally as he would for logging railroads. Then 

 put the section on Forest engineering under Forest management ; tak- 

 ing from that section at the same time the part on Game and fish (.744) 

 and making it, with Grazing and the section on utility of National 

 Forests (.9711), into one section on Other uses of forests, which should 

 include water-power, grazing, game refuges, hunting, all recreational 

 uses, and whatever pertained to these uses. Or else, as is explained 

 in the last part of this article, why not confine the number of main 

 divisions ? 



As for auxiliary and related subjects, the regular Dewey system 

 seems to me to be a kind of lazy-man's way of treating them for a 

 forestry library. The Dewey system is arranged primarily for the 

 needs of a large library containing material on all subjects and con- 

 sidering the main ones as co-ordinate parts of the sum of all human 

 knowledge. Now when one is magnifying one subject, such as for- 

 estry, into the thing of main importance, one can no longer consider 

 other subjects as co-ordinate with it, but literally as auxiliary. That 

 means two tilings : First, that one must put all possible parts of the 

 auxiliary subject into the mo in classification, as Mr. Korstian has done 

 with Grazing, for instance, most parts of which in a general library 

 come under the head of Animal industry; second, that one must make 

 the classification of tiie auxiliary subjects themselves as simple as possi- 

 ble, since the forester will think of them in broad lines. And I do 

 not think that merely selecting the main headings from the Dewey 

 classification will make the most suitable system for this simple use. 



