January 27, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



149 



as against 8 references in the ' International 

 Catalogue ' and one title was lacking from the 

 cards, whereas 29 were not entered in the 

 ' International Catalogue.' A further study 

 of the author catalogue in the latter showed 

 that in reality but four titles were lacking and 

 one other was incorrectly entered. Of the 

 titles missing from the subject catalogue six 

 were entered under more general headings, 

 since the bibliographer had doubtless fol- 

 lowed the error in the titles of the papers ; two 

 were entered incorrectly under other geo- 

 graphic divisions, and twenty-one were not 

 listed under any faunistic subdivisions, al- 

 though seven of these gave positive evidence 

 and two others bore some indication in the 

 title that this region was treated. An an- 

 alysis of parthenogenesis made in the same 

 way showed nine titles wanting from the ' In- 

 ternational Catalogue,' and from the cards 

 only two, both of which were Russian. 



A similar test was made in the subject of 

 parasites, where the publications are sufficient- 

 ly numerous, the notes and references suffi- 

 ciently hidden, and the places of publication 

 so dispersed as to test very sharply the char- 

 acter of any bibliographic enterprise. Twenty- 

 four references were lacking among the cards 

 of the Concilium Bibliographicum, ninety- 

 three from the subject lists of the ' Interna- 

 tional Catalogue ' ; and of these latter forty- 

 eight bore distinct evidence in the title that 

 they treated of parasites of specific groups of 

 animals. 



The list of names for new genera and species 

 constitutes, as already noted, an important 

 and most desirable feature of the ' Catalogue.' 

 Here the method of entry is distinctly faulty 

 in that the type is not noted, the locality is 

 not given, the page of first record is not en- 

 tered and the original form is not cited in con- 

 nection with those designated as new names. 

 On reviewing the parasitic forms I was able 

 to find many names of new genera and species 

 omitted, even from the papers listed ; in all 

 were noted as wanting among Protozoa two 

 new genera and four new species ; among flat- 

 worms one new genus and eighteen new 

 species ; among Nematoda two new genera and 

 ten new species ; among parasitic Crustacea 



two new genera and four new species. I do 

 not doubt that the actual number wanting is 

 decidedly greater than the figures given. 



Some tests were also made to determine the 

 accuracy of the work, both in citation and in 

 the elaboration of the material used. In 

 addition to such as are evident mistakes in 

 printing', there is the usual number of errors 

 of a ijurely mechanical type, such as reversing 

 the names in a paper of joint authorship, en- 

 tering papers by two authors of somewhat 

 similar name under a single heading, or as- 

 cribing publications to a different author of 

 the same family name. In some instances 

 also papers are included which, according to 

 other authorities, fall within 1900 or 1902. In 

 the one instance, which could be checked here, 

 the ' International Catalogue ' is apparently 

 in error. Even in work done by our own 

 countrymen one finds the Washington Acad- 

 emy of Sciences referred to as the National 

 Academy. 



As regards accuracy in handling the ma- 

 terial treated, I have to record without fur- 

 ther comment the chance discovery that among 

 the papers in the Quarterly Journal of 

 Microscopical Science two in the March 

 (1901) number are omitted and also two in 

 the May (1901) number. A more extensive 

 test could not be made for lack of time ; yet 

 missing titles were noted from several prom- 

 inent journals. 



A lack of uniformity in treatment is very 

 noticeable in the work done by different 

 nations. Thus the English bibliographers 

 have entered chapters in text-books under 

 special headings and also reviews of various 

 articles. Had this been done by other nations 

 it would have added largely. Very likely 

 some such references should be included, and 

 that when they contain valuable critical mat- 

 ter by some specialist on the group under 

 consideration; but it is equally patent that 

 only such a specialist can pass upon the value 

 of such items. Erom the standpoint of a 

 bibliographer the treatment of these matters 

 must be uniform. The lack of uniformity is 

 further shown by the inclusion of a single 

 article on Bacillus icteroides which probably 



