Papers and proceedings of the thirty-fifth general meeting of the American Library Association, 1913

ssimistic negative. Books are wanted in all possible and impossible arrangements. You cannot make a classification that, even with the customary transf

riology, for the books would be wanted now under botany, now under pa

allography, eugenics, child-psychology. These he says are claimed in their entirety by two or three different sciences. These arguments, launched against so-called "scientific classifications," are no less hostile to the worthy undertaking of a practi

ystem; it is the established, the familiar, the most practical. With all its faults, we love it still. Is not that na?ve? Then, a consistent, scientific syst

rworked. Certain systems have, I fear, expanded beyond the capacity of their safety valves to save them from explosion. Thousands of the details of those inflated schedules are practically useless even in the largest library. Such abnormal distension of the bibliographical body, or hypertrophy of its special parts, is not now for the first time called a disease of the bibliot

tation and index are but correlative to classification, and, however requisite to a practical system, are in truth of minor importance. They are the fingers and th

iology of plants. The question arises, is there a class of books and pamphlets treating especially of this subject, the tendency of plants to respond to gravitation, as a stimulus? "Have you in your library," I might ask individually of the majority, "have you an aggregation of books on this subject?" The A. L. A. List comes nearest in the sub-headings under Plants, where with Movements appears Heliotropism, a kindred subject. This caption Movements is for a veritable class of subjects, and it might indeed comprise Geotropism. That is just what the Library of Congress schedule does, subordinating under QK 771 "Movements, Irritability in plants

of these, reduce the bulk of the system, and make for economy and convenience. The L. C. schedules suffer from similar but more astounding expansion. Class H, Sociology and Economics, is nee

related to the pelicans; but there appears besides only the single subject Oology (eggs), at the end as PGZ. No place under Birds for their structure, their habits, for the popular bird-books, and for such interesting subjects as their migration, flight, etc., about which there are books! However m

t completely answered the pessimistic. This we may now proceed to do in connection with the third answer, which is optimistic and constructive, while at the same time critical. This affirms that better classification is feasible, that it may

uch for those who want a book, whose author and subject are known, or any good book on a particular subject; for such, the author and subject-catalogs may suffice

the card-catalog. The reference librarian, the selective lists, may serve such wants, but close classification usually does so most economically and most satisfactorily. For v

himself is to make selection according to his purpose or point of view. Free access and classificat

recious collections. Classification, not merely any old kind of subject, or close classification, but good, scientific, close classification, based upon good, consistent, broad classification, is here of paramount importance. The test comes when the student turns from the special to the more general and the related subjects, which are mostly in related branches of science. The tendency to organization in science is rapidly and s

ogy. The science and art of education are mainly concerned with the mental. They are related to Physiology and to Sociology as Psychology is related. But to place Education under Sociology, as is done by the D. C. and the E. C. is to answer the relation of second, not of first depe

hropo

Human p

ycho

al psyc

ld-psy

duca

tional p

ogy and

ocio

thno

ist

lies the practical art of classification, so to dispose classes, divisions, and subdivisions, that they shall produce a relative minimum of inconvenience under the average conditions of demand and a relative maximum of collocation not only of special classes but of

he subject-index, however useful to classifiers, is of little value to students. I approve close classification, but find it the more unsatisfactory and baffling as it is the less consistently adapted to goo