College and Research Libraries considers the mass of horesome printed ma- terials which he must have had to comb through to come up with the significant items in this extremely important but, to most of us, terribly boring phase of library buildings, too much thanks would be im- possible. T h e editors again have selected the best man for the subject, one who is patient, tireless, and yet enthusiastic. Again, one hardly knows who to criticize for the mis- leading title, but it is inconceivable that Louis Kaplan thought he was writing on shelving and then turned out such a fine section on storage. T h e third part (52 pages) of the book on storage warehouses is by Jerrold Orne, and, for a change, it is on storage warehouses, which he covers both extensively and inten- sively. T h e readers of CRL saw a large por- tion of this study in the November 1960 issue of this journal under the title, "Storage and Deposit Libraries." Because of this fact, comments here will be more limited than on the other two parts. Orne's use and treatment of the literature in order to reveal the current state of the art have already been evaluated by most of us. Actually, this reviewer thinks he did his customarily fine and scholarly job, but his proposal as to how the problem of storage ought to be approached basically is much better substantiated and appears much more logical when read in its fuller form. Oddly enough, although Orne seems to have been able to adapt himself to die handbuch method even better than Ellsworth and Kap- lan, he takes off further in flight in the rec- ommendation not only for areas of needed research but in proposing possible solutions. H e does this, however, in the section of his part where this is permissible, for each of the three have a section which deals with "tar- gets [or directions] for research." T h e Coun- cil on Library Resources, it seems to me, should be quite pleased with the sections all three authors have under this "Targets . . . " heading. Kaplan's suggestions are most sound; Orne's are, as already stated, even more sweeping than we had expected; and, of course, in Ellsworth the profession has one of its truly great imaginations.—William H. Jesse, University of Tennessee Libraries. Comment Classification and Indexing W e are by now so accustomed to Mortimer T a u b e ' s ill-informed and splenetic outbursts that we usually ignore them. T h e farrago of misrepresentations and nonsense statements masquerading as a review of Vickery's Classi- fication and Indexing in Science is such an extreme example, however, that it calls for a mild corrective. I will try to keep this short, but to explain all the points I have marked would require many pages. First of all, I must say that not only are we in Europe aware of the value of American intellectual contributions, but that the whole point of Vickery's work is to in- crease our awareness; naturally, we also hope that his book will have a two-way effect. It is clear that Mr. T a u b e neither under- stands nor intends to understand the "facet analysis" type of classification; no doubt he thinks he is the only one entitled to coin new terms. H e writes of the "general lack of impact of Ranganathan's work on librarian- ship, outside of I n d i a . " Ranganathan's work is known and appreciated all over the world. He has visited the U.S.A. several times, and during the last two years has—in his late s i x t i e s — v i s i t e d the U . S . A . , U . K . , B r a z i l , France, Germany, Poland, Russia, and Ja- pan; at least four of these countries by invi- tation. Where has Mr. T a u b e been during this time? Mr. Ranganathan is a vice-president of both I F L A and F I D , and a member of the editorial boards of Libri and of American Documentation. T h e s e are only a few exam- ples of his "lack of impact." T o discredit an opponent ascribe to him a ridiculous statement that he did not make. Mr. T a u b e does this very well. Mr. Vickery M A R C H 1 9 6 1 ' 167 does not admit (p. 421) that his chapter "de- fies comprehension." He does not "sum up as follows: . . . " W h a t he does is to make the statement quoted by Mr. T a u b e and then give a summarized version which is perfectly clear to anyone who knows anything about recent work on classification. Mr. Vickery does not add "that the whole problem de- mands further study." W h at he says is: "As well as the scheduled terms whose relations are indicated by the categories to which diey belong, a number of specifically relational terms—phase relations—are also needed, which demand further study." He does not claim that chain indexing "solves both the problem of multiple place classification sys- tems and permutations of indexing terms." It is certainly one method of doing this, but we are all too well aware that it is not a final solution. T a u b e says its utility "remains doubtful" but offers no reasons or evidence. These are a few examples of categorical statements that simply cannot be substanti- ated. Several others could be given. T h e Classification Research Group, unlike Morti- mer T a u b e , realises only too well that it has not discovered the ultimate truths about clas- sification and indexing. Its work has had useful results in several countries, at a cost probably not exceeding one week's cost of one literature searching machine (one of the cheaper ones). W e do not expect to be treated with any special reverence; in fact, much of our most useful work has resulted from informed criticism. T h i s is true of any school of thought. Surely we are entitled to expect a reviewer in a scholarly journal to pay attention to the facts and not to use his space simply as a chance for parading his own ignorant bombast?—D. J. Foskett, Insti- tute of Education, University of London. Dr. T a u b e replied as follows: Mr. Foskett has lost his temper and has failed to reply to the m a j o r points in the review. I t remains the case that Ranga- nathan, who is certainly an outstanding fig- ure in world librarianship, has had little impact on practical library operations out- side of India, and it also remains the case that Vickery's book and the work of the Classification Research Group in England represent "an anti-scientific obscurantism which is defending tradition against scien- tific and logical a d v a n c e . " — M o r t i m e r Taube, Documentation Incorporated. Official Gazetteers Listed T h e N e w Y o r k P u b l i c L i b r a r y has issued a list o f t h e official gazettes w h i c h h a v e b e e n m i c r o f i l m e d d u r i n g t h e first s i x m o n t h s of a s p e c i a l p r o j e c t . T h e list is a r r a n g e d by c o u n t r y , gives t h e dates c o v e r e d , t h e n u m b e r o f f e e t o f film a n d t h e p r i c e . T h u s far, t h e p r o j e c t covers o n e h u n d r e d a n d thirty-five n a t i o n a l , p r o v i n c i a l , a n d m u n i c i - p a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s . T h e gazettes h a v e b e e n a s s e m b l e d a n d filmed in such a way t h a t i n d e p e n d e n t s e c t i o n s s u c h as p r o c e e d i n g s o f l e g i s l a t i v e b o d i e s , p a t e n t s a n d t r a d e m a r k s , t r a d e b u l l e t i n s , s u b s i d i a r y l e g i s l a t i v e d o c u m e n t s , a n d d e p a r t m e n t a l r e p o r t s m a y b e p u r c h a s e d i n m a n y i n s t a n c e s . T h e g a z e t t e p r o j e c t at T h e N e w Y o r k P u b l i c L i b r a r y was suggested b y t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f R e s e a r c h L i b r a r i e s . R e q u e s t s f o r t h e list o f films n o w a v a i l a b l e a n d o t h e r i n q u i r i e s s h o u l d b e addressed to t h e P h o t o g r a p h i c S e r v i c e D i v i s i o n , T h e N e w Y o r k P u b l i c L i b r a r y , 5 t h A v e n u e a n d 4 2 n d S t r e e t , N e w Y o r k 18, N e w Y o r k . 168 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S