224. Owing to the systematic rejection of a certain class of paper during the last two or three years, fewer papers of the kind are now submitted, and rejection becomes a matter of more difficulty, for there are many good workers, and the results of their work should be recorded. It becomes increasingly evident, however, that unless the amount available for printing is augmented, there will have to be even more rigid scrutiny of papers It may be advisable to enforce the decision of the Institute that in all papers accepted for publication that are more than 30 pages in length, the author be required to bear the cost of all beyond 30 pages, though this will not mean a great deal. In the two parts of the last volume (No. 55) there were only two papers in each part, that is four in all, that exceeded the 30 pages. Some authors had more than one paper, and, including all their papers, there were three authors in each part, that is, six in all, who had more than 30 pages. If these extra pages, 58 in the first part and 71 in the second, or 129 in all, had been charged for, there would have been a saving to the Institute of just on £200. There were 34 papers of 10 pages or under; 47 of 20 pages or under; 53 of 30 pages or under. The total papers numbered 57, so that it will be seen that there were not many unreasonably long papers.

There is another question that might be considered, and that is the publication of the volume in two parts, the first containing lists of new species and like urgent papers, the second the papers whose early publication is not so vital, together with the Annual Report and Appendixes. The cost would be very little more, and there would not be the great delay that the big volume causes.

Johannes C. Andersen