Mr. A. G. S. Josephson [wished that a complete bibliography] of university theses could be made.
The chairman announced that the election of officers for the next year would take place, and called for nominations.
Mr. Josephson nominated Mr. A. S. Root for chairman. Mr. Root was elected. Dr. Canfield nominated for secretary Mr. W. M. Smith, and Mr. Smith nominated Miss Emma A. Hawley. Mr. Smith was elected.
After the election there followed a general discussion of the topics presented during the afternoon, those receiving special notice being classification, notation, the use of call numbers, department libraries and university theses.
In the discussion Mr. Fletcher said:
My thought about dispensing with shelf-marks in the card and other catalogs (not really my thought, for I had it from one of our leading librarians, who has not, however, put it in practice himself) is that the great difficulties connected with the changing of shelf-marks in catalogs when books are reclassified may be avoided by placing on the card only the accession number (in case of a set the accession number of the first volume), and then maintaining a key, consisting of a book closely ruled in double columns, where for each book in the library the shelf-mark is written in pencil against the accession number and changed whenever the book is renumbered. Such a scheme could not be satisfactorily applied in a library where the looking-up of the shelf-mark is involved in the calling for books in most cases. I am prepared to favor it only where (as is now the case in our own library) a majority of the calls for books are made orally and answered by the attendant without reference to shelf-mark. In our case these calls amount to seven-eighths of all the calls, and in addition to this it should be said that at least one-half the books drawn under our open-shelf system are drawn without any "call" at all, so that we may say, that if we had the "key" system it would come into play for perhaps one-sixteenth of the books drawn. In libraries of moderate circulation like our college and university libraries, and (for all but certain classes which are most used) even in the large public libraries, it seems to me that the key plan may work well. Of course the key if subjected to constant use would be difficult and expensive to maintain, owing to wear and tear. We should not fail to observe that three separate and distinct features of modern library progress are each and all working against the necessity, i.e., tending to minimize the necessity, of shelf-marks in the catalog.
These are, first, the open-shelf system; second, minute classification and alphabetical arrangement in classes, and third, book-card charging systems. Without enlarging upon these points, I would like to suggest them to you as worthy of consideration.
Mr. Hodges described briefly the classification of the scientific books at Harvard. First, the serial publications of the broad learned societies, the societies taking cognizance of all branches of learning, are brought together arranged alphabetically by country and city. Secondly, the general scientific serials and the special scientific serials, however published, are arranged in a group; the general coming first, the others following according to subject, astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural history, zoology, botany, etc. When suggesting the separation of the serials in pure science from the handbooks at the very outset of his work at Harvard, Mr. Hodges urged that the serials constitute a record literature to which the investigator must refer when carrying on original work, while the handbooks are used by the pedagog when preparing for his classwork. The general designation for the learned society group is L. Soc.; for the scientific serials, Sci. The handbooks on physics are in a group designated Phys.; the general treatises by Phys. 357-360. A treatise published in 1892 is marked Phys. 358-92; another of the same year, by Phys. 358.92.3.
Mr. Root said: It may possibly have interest in this connection to note that the catalog of the University of Göttingen, which was established about 1750, has the feature which has been mentioned here as characteristic of the Harvard system. The books are grouped in large classes with an abbreviated heading, with minute sub-classification. Just when this system was introduced I do not know, but I suppose it to have been in use a hundred years or so, which I judge to be a longer life than Mr. Fletcher is willing to allow to the D. C.
Interesting remarks were made by several others, notably Mr. Andrews, Dr. Steiner and Dr. Canfield. It is to be regretted that the revision of their remarks has not been received in time for publication.