714 
for the botanical library, in addition to that 
which would be found on other shelves. 
It would at first sight seem quite unnec- 
essary that the classification of botanical 
knowledge, or, for that matter, of knowl- 
edge in any department, for special library 
purposes, should demand consideration in 
connection with the preparation of any 
catalogue or the arrangement of the books 
on the shelves of any library, since the en- 
tire subject and its various parts have fre- 
quently been handled by people of large ex- 
perience; but, as Professor Bessey has 
shown, the treatment of any specialty, and 
particularly of one in which development 
has been rapid and interest limited to a 
relatively small number of people, by 4 
general librarian, to whom it is of minor 
importance since it represents only one 
small fraction of his field, is likely to be 
unsatisfactory to the student who wishes to 
enter into its minutiz, while, on the other 
hand, the classification of such special 
knowledge by a specialist is likely to be 
carried into such detail as to make it too 
complicated for general purposes. 
The scheme which is submitted below is 
essentially the same as the purely botanical 
portion of the unpublished scheme referred 
to by Professor Bessey, with the modifica- 
tion of certain details which are not neces- 
sary for ordinary library purposes. While 
the attempt to adhere to any numerical or 
similar division of a subject is certain to be 
attended by so many inconsistencies as to 
make it undesirable to be biased by it, the 
convenience of a decimal arrangement is so 
great that in this scheme several subjects, 
which are really primary, have been divided 
soas to make nine principal topics, the sub- 
division of which, then, has been arranged 
into such a number of parts in each case as 
seemed desirable. It is to be understood 
that in the list subjects which are either 
mixed or of too indefinite a character to find 
place under subdivisions will naturally take 
SCIENCE. 
[N.S. Von. X. No. 255. 
place under the general division to which 
they obviously pertain, and in each section 
the arrangement would be alphabetical by 
authors. As herein proposed, the scheme 
of topics would be stated as follows : 
BOTANY.* 
1. Works of miscellaneous contents, but of 
botanical interest, and treatises on several 
branches of botany. 
2. Biographies of botanists, and collected 
writings of miscellaneous contents, whether 
purely botanical or botanical in part only. 
3. Nomenclature, taxonomy and descriptive 
botany. 
4. Morphology and organography. 
5. Vegetable physiology, including ecology. 
6. Vegetable pathology, including the in- 
juries of plants and therapy. 
7. Evolution, natural selection, ete. 
8. Man’s influence on plants, artificial selec- 
tion, ete. 
9. Phytogeography, floras, etc. 
These general topics, for the purposes of 
any but the most special branch of botany, 
seem capable of logical subdivision in the 
way that is indicated below, without intro- 
ducing a complexity beyond the endurance 
of anyone competent to handle a general 
library in which modern science is fairly 
represented, but any topic represented by 
only a few works can readily be left undi- 
vided until division becomes necessary. 
Where the number of works becomes too 
great for convenient handling in any ulti- 
mate division as here stated, the specialist, 
who alone will have occasion to handle a 
collection of the kind, can readily subdi- 
vide to any extent that he may wish; but 
it should be remarked that beyond the 
actual needs of subdividing any topic, such 
* To bring this scheme into agreement with a reso- 
lution of Section G, recommending ‘‘asa basis for the 
classification of a botanical library, the decimal sys- 
tem now in common use in the United States,’ it is 
necessary only to designate ‘ Botany’ as 580, and to 
prefix 58 to each numeral as here used: e. g., 5.111 
becomes 585.111, ete. 
