320 REPORTS ON THE STATE OF SCIENCE, ETC. 
of a work, multiplied by any mechanical process, to his, or their, personal 
acquaintance. This definition, however, lacks precision in respect of the words 
‘limited’ and ‘acquaintance.’ The practical interpretation is that the ordinary 
person is liable to be refused a copy. 
(4) The publication of a written work must consist in the multiplication of 
copies, and in their distribution either to all who demand (as in the case of 
certain Government issues, or other matter scattered urbi et orbi), or to all 
who pay the price asked. Here, again, the practical interpretation is that no 
unavoidable difficulty shall be placed in the way of a would-be acquirer. The 
ordinary dictionary definition and the trade custom agree with this definition 
by insisting on either sale or universal distribution. 
(5) It is now clear that a work may be written, printed, and placed on 
sale by an individual who is not by profession a publisher, and that such work 
will none the less be published, provided that the law of the country of pro- 
duction is in other respects complied with, e.g. the Copyright Act of Great 
Britain. It is, however, most desirable that in all cases, whether by Govern- 
ments or individuals, in which publication is not through ordinary trade 
channels, reasonable annotncement of the fact should be made through that 
section of the public press which may be expected to reach parties interested. 
(6) There are certain limitations of distribution which create difficulties. 
When a number of people club together and subscribe to produce a book for 
themselves and themselves alone, it seems clear that this does not constitute 
publication; and proof of this is that the method is sometimes adopted to 
escape police prosecution. If this be accepted, however, a difficulty seems to 
arise in the case of the few learned societies which refuse to sell any part 
or volume of their serials to one who is not a member; we hold that this action 
is in restriction of the advance of knowledge, and that it should therefore 
wot be regarded as publication. 
(7) We have ir our second Report (Toronto, 1897, Recommendation No. 3) 
dealt with the private distribution of authors’ separates before publication of 
the part er volume; many societies have since acted on our recommendation, 
and have placed a price on such pre-prints, as well as on their own abstracts ot 
proceedings, formerly distributed to members only. 
(8) The application of the foregoing principles to zoological (and botanical) 
nomenclature brings us up against a fresh difficulty. It is generally recognised 
that for our purposes publication must be limited to such books and serials as 
our fellow-workers may reasonably expect to contain such matter. Conse- 
quently a new specific name cabled to The Z'imes, or printed in a trade-journal 
or a literary review, would, rightly, be ignored by systematists. If there is 
any doubt in a particular instance it should be decided by the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 
(9) We have not dealt here with the other conditions required to validate a new 
systematic name. Publication is only one condition. So far as that is con- 
cerned we may sum up thus :— 
Publication of a new systematic name is effective only when the volume, 
paper, or leaflet in which it appears is obtainable at a price in the way of 
trade by any applicant, or is distributed widely and freely to circles interested, 
it being always of a character suitable to the publication of such matter. 
Your Committee asks for its reappointment, with a grant of 1/. to meet 
incidental expenses, and requests that this Report be published. 
i ag ie ie 
