No. 482] CATALOGUINC MI SFA M SI' l-j ■ I M i:\ S 79 



Murray :04, etc. Meyer (p. 419) briefly outlines tlu' hiciIkmI used 

 in the Field Columbian Museum, while Murray (v. 1. p. L't, 1 1 some- 

 what naively suggests that "As a rule it is of ini]>oriaii( (' iliai the 

 exact locality from which each specimen has been ()l)taine(l 

 should be recorded .... This does not apply to archaeological 

 objects alone. . . .The date of finding or acquisition is often like- 

 wise of importance." 



There are nevertheless a few papers which should be iiientiotied. 



Hoyle, '91, described the cataloguing of specimens in the Man- 

 chester Museum and formulated a system of 'registraiioti ' in book 

 form, and of 'cataloguing' through the use of canN. His rei,ns- 

 tration catalogue corresponded to that designated in tlie succeed- 

 ing pages as The Department Catalogue. It consisted of four- 

 teen volumes bearing reference letters A-(^. be^imiinir \vith A- 

 Mammals, B-Aves, etc., and ending witli XMineraloi:y. and O- 

 Anthropology. Each volume contained space for speci- 

 mens and was ruled in perpendicular colunui> m) that sj)ace for 

 data concerning 'date,' 'name,' 'locality.' and 'remarks,' was 

 afforded. When a specimen arrived ar tlie nm^'um, the first 

 vacant number in the volume correspondinu' to tlie ^jroup to which 

 the specimen belonged, was affixed to it and the data concerning 

 it noted in the appropriate colmnn. After the specimen was thus 

 'registered' {i. e., our DepartmiMit ('atalouuei it was farther cata- 

 logued in what Hoyle describc^l a-^ the "('nrator> Catalogue" 

 {i. €., our Reference Catalogtie) by meairs of wliich an official 

 record of the contents of the museum arratiired accordin*; to a 

 natural classification, was maintaine(k This is verv similar to 

 that which I have terme.l The Referetuv Catalo-ue. It con- 



