INTRODUCTION 



The first list of USNM herpetological publications was issued in 

 1968 as No. 1 of the S.H.I.S. 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 Zoo- 

 logy and Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology ) are potential outlets 

 for herpetological papers. However, no pertinent publications had appeared 

 in the latter series by the end of 1978. 



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

 with decisions on exactly what should be included in a list of "herpetologi- 

 cal" 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. 



I have long felt that a shortcoming of the first list was the lack 

 of concern with dates of publication. Although most of the Smithsonian 

 series have been fairly reliable about insuring that the proper year 



