48 
5. The insertion of Botanical Gardens, 
Museums and Herbaria in the division 
‘Taxonomy ’ is, to say the least, quite un- 
expected. Why we should regard these 
illustrative collections of plants as taxo- 
nomic is impossible to make out. These 
constitute and are as much a part of Mor- 
phology, Anatomy, Physiology, Pathology 
and Geographic Distribution as they are of 
Taxonomy. They should be given separate 
place or be introduced under each of the 
foregoing heads. 
As we run over the schedule prepared by 
the International Committee we cannot 
help wishing that they had had access to 
the as-yet-unpublished address by Dr. Wm. 
Trelease on ‘ The Classification of a Botan- 
ical Library’ given before the Botanical 
Seminar of the University of Nebraska in 
May, 1898, embodying the results of years 
of study of the problem. This is not the 
place in which to discuss Dr. Trelease’s 
classification, especially since it has not yet 
appeared in print, but it may not be out of 
place to call the attention of the Interna- 
tional Committee to it, as we understand 
that itis to appear within a few months. 
It is evident that we must look to some 
one like Dr. Trelease for the solution of the 
problem. The librarians cannot solve it, 
nor can the botanists themselves; the 
former know too little of botany, and the 
latter know too little about library 
technique. We must look to the men who 
are modern, working botanists, and who at 
the same time have charge of large botanical 
libraries, as they alone are able to see the 
botanical needs, on the one hand, and the 
library limitations, on the other. 
CHARLES HE. BrEssEy. 
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA. 
ANTHROPOLOGY. 
TuE International Catalogue Committee 
naturally encountered special difficulties in 
dealing with the subject of anthropology, 
SCIENCE. 
[N. S. Vou. X. No. 237. 
for the reason that this youngest of the 
sciences is not yet organized in a manner 
acceptable to the entire body of students. 
It is doubtless for this reason (at least in 
considerable measure) that the scheme pro- 
posed is not classific in any proper sense, but 
rather a nearly random assortment of catch- 
words of two degrees of magnitude. Thus, 
while the first major division, ‘ Museums 
and Collections,’ is a fairly logical and con- 
venient one, and its subdivisions are clearly 
defined and acceptable, the other major 
and minor divisions form a curious medley. 
The remaining major divisions are ‘ Arch- 
eology,’ ‘Anthropometry,’ ‘ Races,’ ‘ In- 
dustrial Occupations and Appliances,’ ‘ Arts 
of Pleasure,’ ‘Communication of Ideas,’ 
‘Science (chiefly of primitive races),’ 
‘Superstition, Religion, Customs,’ ‘ Admin- 
istration’ and ‘Sociology (chiefly of primi- 
tive races).’ The first of these divisions is 
based on individual objects defined by a 
time limitation ; the second is based on lab- 
oratory procedure and apparatus ; the third 
has a material objective basis, but the units 
are collective and not all individual; the 
fourth and fifth divisions are based on ac- 
tivities and not on objects, and there is an 
implied time limitation growing out of the 
separate arrangement under ‘ Archzeology;’ 
while the remaining divisions are partly 
objective yet chiefly activital, partly indi- 
vidual yet chiefly collective in basis. The 
heterogeneity in the divisions, both primary 
and secondary, suggests studied avoidance 
of attempt to classify the Science of Man in 
any comprehensive way. 
By reason of the diversity in basis, con- 
siderable overlapping of even the major 
divisions is occasioned; e. g., ‘ Archeol- 
ogy’ overlaps the fourth and fifth divisions 
in a manner peculiarly inconvenient to stu- 
dents who interpret prehistoric artifacts 
through study of the handicraft of living 
savages and barbarians, while ‘ Administra- 
tion’ and ‘Sociology’ mean so nearly the 
