INTRODUCTION 



The first list of USNM herpetological publications was issued 

 in 1968 as No. 1 of the Smithsonian Herpetological Information 

 Service (SHIS) series. In preparing the list, J. A. Peters 

 scanned the tables of contents of the various Smithsonian 

 publications for articles specifically mentioning amphibians and 

 reptiles; paleontological, parasitological and general natural 

 history papers were not included. 



In the ten years since the first list appeared, the 

 Smithsonian publications series have changed significantly. The 

 Bulletin, Proceedings, and Miscellaneous Collections all have 

 been discontinued and replaced by the Contributions series, two 

 of which (Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology and Smithsonian 

 Contributions to Paleobiology) are potential outlets for 

 herpetological papers. 



In using, correcting and updating the 1968 list, I was 

 confronted with decisions on exactly what should be included in a 

 list of "herpetological" papers. It seemed highly superficial to 

 list only those papers that mentioned amphibians or reptiles in 

 the title, since several reviews with very significant 

 herpetological information would have been excluded (e.g. Abbott, 

 Proceedings, Vol. 16, No. 973). Similarly, it seemed unfair to 

 bibliographers or authors of catalogue accounts to exclude 

 parasitological papers, since such peripheral information often 

 is hardest to locate. The most difficult decision was where to 

 cut off paleontological coverage. I felt that most of Gilmore's 

 work on dinosaurs was inappropriate but that many fossil papers 

 dealing with sub-recent material were pertinent. However, in 

 working through the paleo titles I found that recent species were 

 reported or discussed in papers on Pleistocene or even Pliocene 

 faunas. Consequently, I decided to include all herpetological 

 papers, fossil and recent. 



Although I have tried to avoid arbitrariness, I confess that 

 a certain degree has been necessary; for example, whether to 

 include a paper on birds that discusses similarities between 

 fossil birds and reptiles. My rationale for inclusion was 

 whether or not the discussion was "significant;" certainly it 

 cannot be denied that my concept of significance may not agree 

 with others in the scientific community but I have tended to be 

 liberal with my inclusions. I chose not to include papers in the 

 "Explorations and Field Work" series that appeared from the 

 1920 's to the 1940's. These titles would have greatly expanded 

 this list and, although some useful information on localities, 

 itineraries, etc. are contained in the summaries, no purely 

 herpetological data are included. 



