194 
everybody would agree that the nomination 
should be by the government. Professor 
Dziatzko proposed that the Conference 
should appoint a provisional committee, 
which should enter into communication 
with various governments and learned so- 
cieties and thus prepare for a second con- 
ference which would settle all details. 
General Ferrero thought that the Royal So- 
ciety could itself take the place of the 
provisional committee suggested by Pro- 
fessor Newcomb, but no definite agreement 
was arrived at on this point, and the Con- 
ference adjourned for the day. 
On Thursday, July 16th, the Conference 
again assembled, and the special order was 
the report of the committee for the purpose 
of considering a resolution to indicate the 
nature of the subjects to be admitted to the 
catalogue. This committee reported as fol- 
lows: ‘That a contribution to science for 
the purpose of the catalogue be considered 
to mean a contribution to the mathemat- 
ical, physical, or natural sciences, such as, 
for example, mathematics, astronomy, 
physics, chemistry, geology, mineralogy, 
zoology, anatomy, botany, physiology, gen- 
eral and experimental pathology, experi- 
mental psychology, and anthropology, to 
the exclusion of what are sometimes called 
the applied sciences, the limits of the several 
sciences to be determined hereafter.”’ Pro- 
fessor Mobius called attention to the factthat 
experimental psychology was known in Ger- 
many as psycho-physics, and it was agreed 
to insert that word in the German text. 
Professor Forel and the Italian Ambassador 
favored the inserting of mathematical and 
physical geography, which was agreed to. 
M. Otlet suggested the insertion of paleon- 
tology, but several members insisted that 
this was included under zoology. 
This matter, which threatened to cause 
considerable trouble being disposed of, the 
resolution of Professor Newcomb respecting 
the constitution of an International Council 
SCIENCE. 
[N. S. Von. VI. No. 136. 
was taken up, and with the permission of 
the Conference his resolution was with- 
drawn in order that another one, which had 
received fuller consideration, should be ad- 
mitted. Professor Foster said that he un- 
derstood it to be the view of the Conference 
to remit the question to the Royal Society. 
He said that while the Society would be 
very proud to accept any duty which might 
be imposed upon them they would shrink 
from any executive power in connection 
with the matter. It had been suggested 
that this organizing committee of the 
Royal Society should report. to a future 
meeting of the Conference, but this was ob- 
jected to by several persons on the ground 
that when the Conference was adjourned it 
ceased to be, so that a future Conference 
was suggested. One of the longest discus- 
sions of the entire meeting now followed, 
but it related largely to questions of diplo- 
macy and policy and may well be omitted 
here. After many amendments the resolu- 
tion read: ‘‘ That the Royal Society be re- 
quested to form a committee to settle the 
questions relating to the catalogue referred 
to it by the Conference, or remaining unde- 
cided at the close of the present sittings of 
Conference, and to report thereon to the 
governments concerned.” 
The next important matter was the intro- 
duction of the following resolution: ‘That 
whatever system of classification be ulti- 
mately adopted for the catalogue it is im- 
possible to accept the Dewey system en bloc.” 
By way of explanation of this resolution 
Professor Armstrong said that he had put 
it in this form because the International 
Conference of Bibliography at Brussels had 
accepted the Dewey system and because it 
was so widely used in certain libraries. 
The Royal Society, while not denying the 
merits of the system for the librarian’s use, 
held that it was impossible to accept it for 
the purpose of scientific workers. M. Otlet 
favored the Dewey system. Professor 
