-2 
culties of coping with thei 
serve the hoped-for purpose 
myself who have practically 
in recent years? I used to 
for BA, but not any more—i 
at the Smithsonian, the mos 
the bindery, anyway). 
r complex computer output, do not 
. How many others are there like 
abandoned use of Biological Abstracts 
be "faithful reader" personified 
t is just too heavy (actually, here 
t recent numbers are always out to 
All of which brings us to a pair of new bibliographies 
just received or announced. The first is the "Dean Bibliography 
of Fishes 1968 s ' , prepared by James Atz, and published by the 
American Museum of Natural History, 1971 , 512 pp . This is a 
"computerized bibliographic analysis of the greater part of 
the significant ichthyological literature published during 1968." 
3501 titles are included, and the bibliography is in five parts: 
systematic, subject, geographic, author, and the original cita¬ 
tions organized by serial number. Each of the first four parts 
refer to the fifth for full citation of a paper. The material 
appears in the format of a computer print-out, but it has been 
set in type. How anyone ever found enough time to search out 
the 3500 citations listed, cross-index them to the depth seen 
here, get the material set up in type and then proof-read it, 
all in two years, surpasseth understanding. But some things 
become clear from this obviously useful bibliography: 1) On ly 
professional ichthyologists could have done the job at this 
depth and discrimination. 2) Any professional doing this cannot 
have had much time left for any other professional activities. 
3) All other ichthyologists wi11 benefit enormously f rom the 
effort. 4) The prices given indicate that ichthyologists will 
be able to afford it (see below). For us non-ichthyo logical 
types the question becomes s who among our professional colleagues 
will be available to devote the amount of time necessary to 
do the same job for us? Atz and his colleagues have demonstra¬ 
ted success fully (to me, at least) that a useful, thorough, 
indepth bibliography can be done at reasonable cost. The rest 
of us now have to find people who will do what Atz has done. 
This is not to say that I agree entirely with everything 
as it has been done in this bibliography. The systematic index 
lists under individual taxa all papers by subject, and that 
probably is a useful idea. But both the subject and geographic 
indexes list papers by taxon, and that is not such a good idea. 
Anyone entering the file with an interest in a particular taxon 
will use the systematic index, and find all pertinent material. 
Anyone entering the file with an interest in a particular sub- 
jeCt will wish to look at all papers on that subject, and per¬ 
haps 99% of the time would not need a column of scientific names 
mentioned in the paper to tell him that he should get it out 
and look at it. An enormous amount of space could be saved 
by deleting taxon references in the subject and geographic files, 
or perhaps retaining such references only above the generic 
level. 
The entire bibliography is organized for computerized search 
