Aueust 4, 1899.] 
that the figures will be given in connection 
with a work to be published, we believe, in 
India. Of all these facts memoranda were 
taken and a careful outlook was kept till 
this week, when an unexpected continuation 
appeared in the Annals and Magazine for 
April, where the remaining ten pieces were 
described three months after the first paper. 
We have still memoranda filed under the 
author’s name and under publications ar- 
riving from India, so that the figures may 
be referred to in connection with the de- 
scriptions, and have written to the authors 
for more precise data. A third instance is 
in the last volume of the Mémoires of the 
Société Paléontologique Suisse. Here the 
new species are distinguished by the addi- 
tion of the year 1898 to the author’s name. 
In this case I do not believe an inexperienced 
person could discover that they were new 
species. Finally, in the last number of the 
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of 
of London, p. 586, is the description of a 
new species of monkey, contained in a state- 
ment of the additions to the menagerie. 
These are but a few instances taken from 
the proof-sheets now before me. Were I to 
go further back I might mention utterly 
confusing cases, such as the paper by 
Schuchert in the Proceedings of the United 
States National Museum, No. 1117, where 
the context shows that the new species de- 
scribed as Dipeltis Carri is really Diplodiscus 
Carri. 
pose that a reliable work can be framed, de- 
pendent upon the contributions of a score 
or more of workers scattered all over the 
globe? Does it suppose that all these coun- 
tries will maintain a staff of trained special- 
ists to do this work? In such work it is of 
prime importance that the work should be 
centralized ; any other course is extravagant, 
leads to inaccuracies and confusion, and 
tends to delay the publication. 
Turning, now, to the central bureau in 
London, let me point out a suggestive con- 
_ SCIENCE, 
Does the Royal Society really sup- , 
147 
trast: The Committee believe that, on the 
average, the experts editing the bibliography 
of each science will have about three or four 
hours’ work per week. In the Concilium, 
although the experts lose almost no time for 
mechanically copying titles (this being done 
for them), itis found necessary to devote 
about 68 hours to this work. This does not 
include the time of the proof-reader. 
The financial statement is also open to. 
criticism. In the first place, it is to be noted’ 
that the estimates are based upon the use: 
of the linotype, while all the examples in-- 
volve ordinary type-setting. With the 
linotype only one kind of type can be 
used. In order to obtain a differential card, 
such as the Concilium issues, no less than 
six kinds of type, not to mention the Rus- 
sian, Polish, Bohemian, Spanish, Hunga- 
rian, Scandanavian and Portuguese alpha- 
bets, which must frequently be drawn upon. 
Considering, now, the specimen set of slips, I 
may call attention to the fact that, according 
to the tariff in use on the Continent, at least, 
the type-setting would cost 35 per cent. 
more than it would according to our usages ; 
the missing pages could not be estimated by 
the tariff, but the most favorable calculation 
for the Royal Society would make the ex- 
pense three times as great as ours. When 
we turn, however, to the preparation of the 
secondary slips the expense becomes at least 
twelve times greater than that incurred by 
the Concilium. These facts are particularly 
significant, since the additional expense is 
primarily due to the non-adoption of the 
decimal system. That the sorting is there- 
by rendered much more expensive I have 
already shown. Finally, Professor Carus 
has pointed out the fact that the financial 
statement is based upon a great underesti- 
mate of the number of titles published. 
For Zoology the number should be tripled. 
The greatest discrepancy is to be found, 
however, in the estimated sale of the cata- 
logue. For the authors’ catalogue the Com- 
