JuLy 14, 1899.] 
same thing that these divisions practically 
overlap throughout. For the same reason, 
certain divisions are unduly restricted ; 
e. g., ‘Customs’ is used in a narrow sense, 
while the term is commonly extended over 
nearly the whole range of the human activ- 
ities. Perhaps for a similar reason, there 
are serious lacunee in the scheme ; ‘ Prehis- 
toric human remains’ (a subdivision of 
“ Archeology’) and several subdivisions 
of ‘ Anthropometry’ have place, yet there is 
no place in the scheme for the important 
subject of somatology; so also ‘Supersti- 
tion’ and primitive ‘Science’ (whatever 
that may mean) receive ample space, while 
there is no philosophy (or mythology) ,which 
constitutes a leading subject of anthropo- 
logic inquiry. Possibly somatology and 
philosophy are relegated to other primary 
eategories not included in Anthropology ; 
but, if so, the confusion in the mind of the 
anthropologist desiring to use the catalogue 
will be only the greater. On passing to the 
subdivisions, both the overlapping and the 
lacunee become still more conspicuous ; in- 
deed, the instances are too many for cita- 
tion without practically rewriting the list. 
It is only fair to ascribe much of the 
chaotic character of the scheme to the ill- 
organized state of the science ; yet no ex- 
tension of fairness can conceal the conspicu- 
ous fact that the scheme is chaotic, and to 
such an extent as to incommode seriously the 
anthropologist who may seek to apply it. 
The applicability of the scheme may 
easily be tested by an example or two. 
Suppose Dr. Boas’ rather special memoir 
on ‘The Social Organization and the Se- 
eret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians’ be 
selected, and suppose it be catalogued by 
actual content: In the first place, it is based 
primarily on collections in the National 
Museum, and its illustrations are largely 
representations of Museum specimens indi- 
cated by Museum numbers, which would 
place it in the first major division of the 
SCIENCE. 
49 
scheme, with the subdivision number 0030. 
Then some of the objects and traditions 
described are essentially prehistoric, so that 
it would seem to require entry under the 
second major division, perhaps in number 
0650 ; while there is sufficient reference to 
racial characteristics to suggest entry under 
the fourth division, say in number 1950. 
Certainly, too, the work would have to be en- 
tered in each of the next three major divis- 
ions, probably under numbers 2000, 2050, 
2370, 2400, 2500, 2510, 2520, 2600, 2700, 
3000, 3050, 8100, 3400, 3550, 3600 and 
4100; while it would also find necessary 
place under each of the remaining major 
divisions, and in at least a dozen more 
numbers. All this for a single moderately 
special memoir! Another example, taken 
at random, is Dr. Carus’ recent pamphlet 
on ‘Chinese Philosophy,’ a memoir of spe- 
cial scope and of particular significance to 
museum workers as well as to general an- 
thropologists. In the absence of an appro- 
priate general division, it would require 
introduction probably under ‘Arts of Pleas- 
ure,’ and certainly under ‘ Communication 
of Ideas,’ ‘ Science,’ and ‘ Superstition, Re- 
ligion, Customs,’ and ought to be entered 
under 3100, 3550, 3600, 4100, 5100, 5400, 
5500, and possibly. three or four other num- 
bers. These examples suffice to illustrate 
the difficulties in the way of cataloguing 
anthropologic literature under the scheme 
proposed ; indeed, it would be a wise an- 
thropologist who could, without burden- 
some repetition, catalogue under the scheme 
any considerable mass of literature, even 
for his own use, in such manner as to give 
him much aid in scanning the literature a 
few years later; while the uncertainty of 
cataloguing for others, or of depending on 
the cataloguing of others, would seem to 
outweigh any advantage attending the pro- 
posed schematic arrangement. The diffi- 
culties of cataloguing would naturally be 
greatly diminished if the cataloguer con- 
