4.90 REPORT—1896. 
Zoological Bibliography and Publication.—Report of the Committee, 
consisting of Sir W. H. FLowEer (Chairman), Professor W. A. 
HerpMan, Mr. W. E. Hoye, Dr. P. L. Scuatrer, Mr. ADAM 
Sepewick, Dr. D. Sarr, Mr. C. D. SHERBorn, Rev. T. R. R. 
STEBBING, Professor W. F. R. WELDON, and Mr. F. A. BaTHER 
(Secretary). 
In consequence of the International Conference on scientific bibliography 
convened by the Royal Society, and held from July 14 to 17, your Com- 
mittee has deferred expressing any opinion with regard to questions 
of —oe co-operation or the use of any system of numerical 
notation. 
With a view of obtaining a body of opinion to guide it in its decision, 
your Committee is circulating among various experts, both British and 
foreign, not included in the Committee, the following questions :— 
(A) The first questions to be decided are those of Publication, since a 
bibhography cannot be compiled till it is settled what is to be included. 
(1) What constitutes publication? It is suggested that private pre- 
sentation by the author is not publication, but that the work must be 
obtainable by any individual through ordinary trade channels. An 
exception must be made in the case of reports and bulletins issued by 
public bodies gratis to all bona fide applicants, since some of these are not 
allowed to be sold. 
(2) What is the date of publication? If private presentation be dis- 
regarded, as suggested, then the date of private distribution of an author’s 
separate copies cannot be accepted ; neither can we accept the date of the 
reading of a paper before a learned society, or even that of the issue of 
an abstract thereof to the fellows of such society. 
(3) As a corollary to the above, it was recognised at the meeting on 
May 7, that the isswe of authors’ separate copies before the issue of the 
complete volume leads to confusion. Various reasons, however, seem to 
render this practice a common one, and it is desirable that some remedy 
should be found. It would be possible either to issue each paper or 
memoir as soon as printed, with separate pagination and in a separate 
wrapper, as done by the Royal Society and the Swedish Royal Academy 
of Science ; or to issue the volumes sheet by sheet, as matter might come 
to hand and be printed. On this any suggestions would be very welcome. 
(4) Is it advisable to limit the recognition of publication (a) 1m manner, 
or (b) in matter? (a) Zoologists have generally refused to accept names 
of species appearing in the daily press, accompanied by descriptions pos- 
sibly sent by telegraph ; but where are we to draw the line between the 
popular newspaper or magazine, and, say, the Philosophical Transactions 
of the Royal Society ? It is a serious matter to restrict publication, yet 
the modern increase of mushroom magazines suggests the desirability of 
legislation in this direction. Again, are we to recognise new names pub- 
lished in an unsigned footnote to a report on a public discussion on. a 
totally distinct subject ? Here, again, where is the line to be drawn ? 
Is a name appearing in the explanation to a plate and not in the text to 
be accepted? (b) Can any restriction be placed on language? Russian 
and Czech are recognised ; what about Japanese? Is it advisable to 
