Mr. BISCOE: I want to say a word on the other side. It seems to me that it would be unfortunate to put the collation after the contents, particularly where the contents are long. It would throw the collation on the second card. To find out whether you had more than one volume you would have to turn to another card. If you are looking for duplicates you want to see at once not only the author of the book, but also the number of pages, to show whether the edition is the same. And if for all those purposes you have got to turn to a second card, it seems to me it would be unfortunate. Mr. JONES: I agree strongly with Mr. Biscoe. I think the number of volumes, size, etc., range in properly with the date, while the contents should come afterward and range in with such matter as critical or descriptive notes. Ordinarily you want those parts that I speak of first, then your contents, like any other kind of descriptive or explanatory notes. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Biscoe's position appears at first sight very solid and plausible but there is nothing in it. The reason for this is that there is only a small class of books that will call for a contents note. I deprecate mentioning any institution, particularly The John Crerar Library, but that calls for contents notes probably as often as any, and I should like our cataloger to answer if he knows about how many cases run over on the second card. Mr. JOSEPHSON: We have printed so far about 25,000 cards and the number of titles that run over to second cards is considerably below 1000; it is nearer 500 than 1000. Mr. JONES: I should like to ask the chairman whether in foreign bibliographies we do not find that the data, as to volumes, size, etc.--called the collation--always come first. Should not we be setting ourselves up in opposition to other catalogers if we put the collation after the contents? CHAIRMAN: Possibly that it so; but if we gain a truth, what then? Tradition is powerful, but it is not all. Sometimes it is very little indeed. And this is one of the cases in which I believe it is very little.