REPORT OF ROYAL SOCIETY CATALOGUE COMMITTEE. 457 



the full rei)ort following is placed before the Society for action at the 

 next meeting. 



REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ROYAL SOCIETY CATALOGUE 

 To the Gi'ohx/iral Sorttiif of Amcriro : 



Your conunittee t(i whom was refonvd tlio coiumunication of the Royal Society 

 relatin*; to a catalogue of scieu title papers, tol)eiiuule by iiiteiiuitioiial eooiieration, 

 resi)eetfully submits the following report : 



The committee timls itself fully in sympathy w itli tlie desire of the Royal Society 

 to improve the methods of cataloguing seientilic literature, and is distinctly of the 

 opinion that the estahhshment of such a catalogue, to l)e compiled through inter- 

 national cooperation, is both desirable and practicable. 



To determine in what way this result can be best attained, it will be well to con- 

 siiler what are the defects of existing methods and what are the reciuirements 

 which an improved system may be reasonably expected to fulfill. 



Bibliogmphic catiilogues and indexes are generally defective in one of two ways : 

 Either they present simply a list of titles, which often convey an inadequate and 

 sometimes a mislciiding idea of the contents of the articles catalogued, or they a})- 

 I>ear, like the various annual rei)orts, so long after the publication of the articles 

 which are reported ujwn that they lose a great part of their value as guides to cur- 

 rent literature. A third defect is common to all existing catalogues, namely, that 

 of necessitating a reference to a number of separate volumes whenever the litera- 

 ture of several yeai*s is sought. 



It is evident that some form of card catalogue can ahjne remedy these defects, so 

 that the practical question is : How can a card catalogue of current scientific litera- 

 ture be best established and maintained? The requirements of such a catalogue 

 may be stilted as follows: 



1. It should api).nir promptly ; if possible, simultaneously with the book or article 

 catalogued. 



2. It should furnish an accurate description of the purport of the book or article. 



3. It should be readily accessible to all persons interested in the literature cata- 

 logued. 



It seems probable that these requirements may best be met by the cooperation 

 of a central bureau with the various publishers and editors of scientific literature 

 in i.s'iuing with each book and with each number of every [)eriodical a set of cards 

 of standard size and type, each card to exhibit for a book or for a single article in 

 a jn'riodical — 



1. The name of the author. 



2. The title of the book or article. 



3. The date, place and house of publication of the book, or the title, V(;luuie and 

 page of the i)eriodical in which the article a[>pear8. 



4. A brief sUitement, not to exceed eight or ten lines, to l)e prepared by the 

 author him.self, setting forth tlie general purport of the l)Ook or article, so as to 

 furnisii the nece.«sary data for cross-references. 



Each aird .''hould \tv in duplicate to jx'rmit of arrangeiuiMit accoiding to sul)ject 

 or author, or l»oth if desired, and ad<litional canls slM)uld ])e i.^^sued whenever the 

 character of the title necessiUites cross-references. A curd when printed would 

 present somewhat the following appearance: 



