NOVEMBEK 3, 1922] 



SCIENCE 



499 



Biology and Agriculture of the National Ee- 

 seareh Council, and consists of the following: 



Eepresenting the proposed federation: A. 

 Parker Hitchens, D. E. Hooker C. A. Kofoid, 

 I. P. Le^vis. 



Eepresenting the Division of Biology and Agri- 

 culture: E. D. Ball, C. E. MeClung, J. E. 

 Schramm, A. F. Woods. 



This committee is at work ascertaining the 

 exact situation in abstracting, indexing, and 

 other agencies for recording biological infor- 

 mation thi-oughout the world. Several facts 

 are already obvious. Considering for the mo- 

 ment only the agencies published in English, 

 vre have in this country Abstracts of Bacteri- 

 ology, Index to the Literature of American 

 Economic Entomology, Botanical Abstracts 

 (containing in addition to plant research 

 animal cytology and genetics), Endo- 

 crinology, etc. ; in England, Physiological Ab- 

 stracts, Review of Applied Entomology, Review 

 of Applied Mycology, Zoological Record (Part 

 N of the International Catalogue of Seientifixj 

 Literature), etc. The subscription list of each 

 is small and in many cases the financial sup- 

 port is inadequate to insure that the woi-k will 

 be done thoroughly and in perpetuity. Zoology 

 especially seems in a precarious position since 

 the breakdown of continental agencies and the 

 suspension of the International Catalogue, 

 with the exception of Part N (Zoology), whi<di, 

 however, is financially handicapped. Only in 

 physiology and entomology, and perhaps 

 genetics, is the situation reasonably satisfactory 

 at present. Many of the agencies are hanging 

 on a relatively slender thread; some are likely 

 to break down at almost any moment, indeed, 

 are breaking down. The question is, shall we 

 continue to leave the recording of biological 

 information, only a mechanism, to be sure, but 

 an absolutely indispensable one, to such a pre- 

 carious existence? 



Primarily there appear to be two methods 

 of handling the situation. (1) The present 

 one of a large number of special abstracting 

 journals or bibliographic services. For such 

 special journals there is a rela:tively small de- 

 mand and a correspondingly small support. 

 Here, too, it should be pointed out that the 

 more numerous the journals and the narrower 



the field covered by each, the greater the 

 amount of duplication — necessary duplication 

 under this system since each specialty grades 

 insensibly into neighboring ones on which it 

 depends to a large extent. Furthermore, the 

 conventional line so often drawn between plants 

 and animals is no longer recognized in many 

 lines of work, and rightly so. Separate botan- 

 ical and zoological abstracting journals will not 

 satisfy the geneticist or eytologist, and only im- 

 perfectly many pathologists, physiologists, and 

 ecologists. (2) The other method is the pub- 

 lication of a single comprehensive biological 

 abstracts, corresponding to Chemical Abstracts. 

 Let us consider the second alternative in more 

 detail. 



(1) Cost. The joint -committee has not yet 

 completely determined the approximate volume 

 of biological literature, after delimiting it 

 rougilily from clinical medicine, chemistry, 

 physics, geology, psychology, etc. But it is 

 safe to assume that it is at least as large as 

 chemical literature. Let us assume, then, that 

 a journal fully as large as 'Chemical Abstracts 

 (5,000 pages annually) would be required. If 

 such a journal were made the official organ of 

 the proposed Federation, going to each mem- 

 ber of the constituent societies as Chemical Ab- 

 stracts goes to each member of the various sec- 

 tions of the American Chemical Society (thus 

 insuring a subscription list of 7,000 or 8,000), 

 I believe I am safe in saying on the basis of 

 information in our hands on manufacturing 

 costs that such a journal would cost little or 

 no more than most of the special abstracting 

 journals and considerably less than some of the 

 larger ones like Botanical Abstracts. In other 

 words, a very large journal with a large sub- 

 scription list would cost less per subscriber 

 than a small one with a small subscription list. 

 Let me remind you again of Chemical Ab- 

 stracts with its 5,000 pages annually and an 

 overhead of $26,000 yearly produced at a cost 

 of $6.80 for each member. 



It may be objected that most biologists would 

 be ihterested in but a small part of such a 

 comprehensive journal. The same thing may 

 be said of Chemical Abstracts. I doubt whether 

 there would be greater diversity than in Chemi- 

 cal Abstracts, which includes anything from 



