4. It is sometimes more difficult to get good cataloging from those whose first interest does not lie in this branch of the work, and who are not closely associated with the regular catalogers, and familiar with the many traditions of a catalog department. For this reason we have found at Minnesota, that it is an advantage to have a newly appointed department librarian work in the catalog department for a time before taking up the work in his library.
We have found, however, that with us the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, particularly the one great advantage that it has been a practical way of accomplishing work which could not have been done by our present cataloging department.
Summary
A tabulated summary of the replies received from the libraries circularized has been prepared, but as it is too detailed for reading here, I will omit it, and present, instead, a few conclusions which may fairly be drawn from this summary. While practice is not uniform on any one point of department cataloging, certain tendencies toward uniformity are clearly evident.
1. In the matter of department librarians there is clearly a tendency towards the appointment of trained workers having, whenever possible, some special knowledge of the subject of their departments as well. This, of course, is important, if the cataloging is to be done in the department libraries. All these libraries feel, also, the need for some kind of department catalogs, although the number of such catalogs already established varies from three at the University of Wisconsin to twenty-three at Columbia.
2. There is a pretty general agreement that the dictionary catalog is the most desirable for department libraries. Columbia, Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota report dictionary catalogs in all organized department libraries, and Johns Hopkins in all department libraries outside the main building. Wisconsin and Missouri report dictionary catalogs in certain department libraries, and Chicago reports author catalogs and shelf-lists. All the libraries using dictionary catalogs report the use, in the main, of the same kind of subject headings in department as in general catalogs, except for certain special subjects, such as law, or for certain highly specialized collections, such as the Avery Architectural library at Columbia.
3. There is a somewhat greater variation in the scope of material to be included. So far, only two libraries, Columbia and Michigan, report any department catalogs covering more than the material in the department libraries, but Missouri and Minnesota report that they intend, eventually, to have their department catalogs include all books on the subject in the university. In the matter of analytics the majority practice is to include the same analytics in both general and department catalogs, although Chicago uses no analytics at all in department catalogs, while Columbia, at the other extreme, includes more analytics in department catalogs than in the general catalog.
4. Present opinion seems to be pretty evenly divided on the subject of whether the actual work of cataloging should be done by the department librarians or by the regular cataloging force, although there is perhaps a tendency to have this work done by the department librarians wherever there are trained workers in charge of the department libraries. Universities in which the work for department catalogs is done by the department librarians, report that the department librarians catalog these same books for the general catalog as well.
In conclusion, let me repeat that if the cataloging is done by the department librarians, too much emphasis can not be laid upon the fact that it is absolutely essential to have all this work done under the supervision of the head cataloger, with the most careful revision. Otherwise there will be as many varieties of cataloging as there are department librarians.
In behalf of Dr. W. Dawson Johnston, of Columbia, Miss Isadore G. Mudge read the following