It would be a waste of space, however, to enter a work so comprehensive in character as
Bath, W. H. Ants, bees, dragon-flies, earwigs, crickets and flies.
under each of these as, even though it omits the butterflies, moths, and beetles, it would be well enough dealt with if entered under “Insects.”
As it is a well-understood principle that a book must be entered under the exact subject of which it treats, so a work upon the natural history of animals while coming within the popular notion of “natural history,” and may be so called by its author, as
Lydekker, Richard (Ed.) The royal natural history. Illus. 6 v. la. 8o. 1893-6
yet from the cataloguer’s standpoint it would not be altogether correct to enter it under “Natural History,” as that term is properly held to include the flora as well as fauna, and therefore the heading should be either “Zoology” or “Animals.” This last term is frequently reserved for books dealing only with animals, and apart from birds, reptiles, etc., and for books upon animals, not written from the naturalist’s point of view. Correctness is again ensured by cross-references, as
Natural history of animals. See Zoology.
Animals, Natural history of. See Zoology.
85.—The next books are selected for the purpose of showing the difference in treatment of works similar in character:
Milman, Henry H., Dean. Annals of S. Paul’s Cathedral. 2nd ed. pp. xiv, 540, ports., illus. 8o. 1869