Miss BROWNE: My thesis for defending the size letter is that 25 years ago the A. L. A. thrashed this matter all over and decided on the size symbol. Mr. Bowker has used that letter symbol from that time on. Miss Kroeger found a very large proportion of the libraries using the letter symbol; library classes are teaching the letter symbol. My chief objection to the fold symbol is that we are making one sign serve two uses, which I think is always bad. Mr. JOSEPHSON: If the Library Association 25 years ago decided to use one symbol or another symbol, that is no reason why we should do so now. The objection to using the fold symbol to denote size is, among other things, as Mr. Lane suggested, that you need it in case of old books to tell the fold. The only rational designation of size is by centimeters, or inches, if you prefer. There is of course one difficulty in using accurate measurement in centimeters, if you have a book that has been bound and cut down. But that can be overcome, I think, by letting the measurement mean letterpress and nothing else. In ordinary cases you know about how wide a margin is if you know the side of the letterpress; it is always a certain proportion. You don't need the size to tell on what shelf the book is put, because that is given by the call number. So in order to find a book you don't need the size notation; you need it to see what size the page is. It is a purely bibliographical notation. [Mr. Hanson here read rule for size notation for books "notable for age or rarity."]