This one is on classifying Wildlife and
related topics in the Dewey Decimal system. Just as with Forests (see posts
12-14), Wildlife also poses the problem of too many choices! And these numbers
are situated variously in the Social Sciences (under 333, Land and natural
resources), in 639 (Hunting, fishing, conservation, and related technologies),
and under various numbers in the Biology sections. Let’s have a closer look.
Say you just got a copy of a lovely book on the Wildlife of the Indian Subcontinent, about
all the richest wildlife habitats and the habits and conservation status of the
important animals and birds, their place in history, religion, and culture, and
so on. Where would I like to put books on the wildlife of this place or that on
my shelves? My first instinct would be to… follow my instinct! I think it would
be my instinct to gravitate to the biology shelves… but here we have a problem,
because the book can be filed in Animals (590), or in Ecology (577), or in
Natural history of organisms (578). The biology numbers like 590 may feel a bit
hard-core (in the sense that they are for more scientific or zoological
treatises on body parts, for example), whereas we are looking for a place to
put works for the animal-lover and watcher of live animals (often the opposite
of the biologist!). This is what is called “natural history”, not quite
official as far as the hard-core are concerned, but DDC 22 has fortunately
provided a nice alternative in the form of 578, Natural history of organisms
(which is a relief from DDC 19 which sent you to 508 for Natural history). The
strange problem here is that they don’t seem to provide for geographical
faceting under this particular number. They prescribe 578.01-578.08 for
“standard subdivisions”, then provide only 578.09 for “Historic, geographic, persons
treatment”, but don’t mention extensions of -09 for specific locations and
jurisdictions (578.093-099, as they usually do in their schedules), but only
show one entry, 578.0999 for “Extraterrestrial worlds”! They do have a caution
not to use 578.0914 to 578.0919 extensions for general regions, but instead to
use 578.73 to 578.77, under which you have various ecological types like forest,
grassland, etc. (repeated from 577.3-577.7, under Ecology). I pay no heed to
this implied truncation of -09 numbering, and go right ahead and form the
numbers like 578.0954 (for the Indian sub-continent, for example). And,
naturally, other similar numbers for all “Wildlife of…” type of books which
deal with all types of animals and birds, in relation to the climates, habitats
etc. of regions and countries in general.
The section 578 also has special
subdivisions for other types of natural formations, under 578.7, “Organisms
characteristic of specific kinds of environment”: the numbers after 577 from
Ecology, 577.3 to 577.7, are added to 578.7. Forests, for instance is 578.73
(from 577.3, Forest ecology). So books on
“Rain forests” will go in under 578.734 (from 577.34 Rain forest ecology), and
you can always append geographical endings using 09 from standard subdivisions.
The matter doesn’t end there, however (how
could it be so straightforward!), as you may like to use numbers under Animals
(590) or Mammals (599) or Botany 580 or whatever, for specific “taxonomic
groups”. Say you have a book on the “Large mammals of Africa ”,
that is rhino and elephant and lion and so on: would you like to put it under
578, or would you shift it to its own niche in 599.1, Natural history of
animals? Similarly for other groups. You may like to put a book dealing with
the botanical aspects of forests under 581.73 (again this repeats the numbers
from 577.3 to 577.7), rather than under general natural history. That is, you
could choose to differentiate the books depending on their focus, or accent: is
it dealing with all sorts of organisms? Does it describe the whole ecosystem or
does it talk of each species in particular? The latter would be better off in
the narrower number referring to the taxonomic grouping: say, a “Field guide to
the mammals of India
Another type or genre is books on
behaviour, ethology. Previously Ecology and Ethology used to be treated pretty
closely together. Now the choice would be to put Behaviour under the specific
sub-class under the taxonomic group: “Behaviour of mammals” under 599.15, of
Birds under 598.15, of Animals under 591.5. You have sub-divisions under them
for different aspects of behaviour, such as territory, feeding, mating,
nesting, migrating, and so on (they have omitted 581.5 for Behaviour of Plants,
presumably expecting us to be happy with 581.7 Plant ecology).
As
if this weren’t enough, you have a totally different set-up under Technology,
639.9 (Conservation of biological resources), which comes after Agriculture,
Horticulture, Forestry, Animal culture, and so on. This suggests a
differentiation of techniques of husbandry from basic knowledge of the
organisms. Now is wildlife management a form of husbandry or a subset of
ecology? Under 639.9, they have headings like 639.92 Habitat improvement,
639.93 Population control, 639.95 Maintenance of reserves and refuges, 639.96
Control of diseases etc., 639.97 Specific kinds of animals, and so on up to
639.979 for Mammals and 639.99 Conservation of plants, which suggests what
types of topics go here. I tend to file the more technical books and reports on
wildlife here: manuals on census operations, manipulation of habitat, captive
breeding, disease management, policing (a part of protection), plans and
reports on wildlife parks and congresses, and so on. There is a category of
books which I am still vacillating about, puttng them at times under 578, at
other times under 639.9: this is books on specific wildlife parks and
sanctuaries. The profusely illustrated series of collector’s volumes published
by Sanctuary magazine, for instance,
on individual wildlife areas (Corbett, Bandhavgarh, Sunderbans, and so on), and
some imitators, for instance, treat of the wildlife of the region and should go
under 578, but I prefer to have them under 639.95, Wildlife reserves, because
they are actually focused on the management of these particular jurisdictions,
each with a unique background, history, and set of problems and solutions. I
feel these are books primarily useful for the wildlife manager (639.9),
although packaged as a table-top picture book for the general wildlife
enthusiast (578). I guess either choice would be acceptable. General accounts
of wildlife parks (protected areas) in a state or region also go under 639.95,
even though they may describe their habitats, give species lists and talk about
the habits and ecology of the organisms.
We’re not done yet: there is still the
disturbing factor of the social sciences, which we met with 333.75 Forests, and
now meet again under 333.95 Biological resources (conservation of). Many CIP
(Cataloguing-In-Publications) entries I have noticed, tend to put all
multi-disciplinary accounts under 333 (Economics of land and energy)
sub-divisions, as recommended by Dewey: especially the types of books published
by National Geographic. I tend to avoid this, unless we are dealing
specifically with the social or economic aspects. A book on Wildlife economics,
for instance, or books dealing with wildlife and tribal rights, or community management,
or international conventions, or policy, may prefer this location. On the other
hand, there is a tendency to send Nat Geo books equally to Geography &
Travels 910 to 919, or Ethnology or Human ecology (indigenous peoples and so
on) to 306. There could be other subdivisions on specific aspects like
Government and Public administration, Law, International cooperation, Trade,
Commerce, Production, Non-governmental or Voluntary organizations, etc., which
may receive some of the books and reports, especially boring annual reports and
ministry documents. In all this, finally, we may have to choose two (or at the
most three) favoured locations, even if there were other tailor-made choices,
in the interests of keeping stuff together on the shelves.
No comments:
Post a Comment