Ila,

I have to admit I'm completely stumped by this title change. I combed
backward in the CSB's (issue 26, fall 1984 is where the present LCRI appears).
I looked in issue 25 and found nothing in the index.

CONSER cataloging is done according to guidelines in their manuals. In the
recently published CONSER Cataloging Manual, there are differences from
the LCRI's and OCLC Serials Format guidelines. These are generally ampli-
fications. However, sometimes procedures not in the rules or rule interpre-
tations are followed for the sake of efficiency. A CONSER cataloger may have
been browsing OCLC to see what had already been done; if a title change had
been entered, rightly or wrongly, the decision may have been made to go ahead
and use the record.

For a presentation I did at the ALCTS Committee to Study Serials Cataloging,
I did a survey of titles entered under uniform title but with qualifiers
not sanctioned by the LCRI's. It was explained to me by the LC liaison member
that, indeed, one finds records which seem to deviate from the usual guide-
lines; these are cataloged with a qualifier based on the key title, for the
sake of cataloging efficiency.

Could this be another example of working with what we have, since the change
has been entered? We must also remember that the serial was entered not long
after LCRI 12.7B5 was created; catalogers, me included, tend to follow
experience and judgment after intensive training in the rules.

One last thought: prior to the 1988 revision of AACR2, the rules for title
changes favored all sorts of changes that no longer justify a new record.
I've found from my own experience that it takes time and *practice* for
a new policy to sink in.

Rick Gildemeister
Cataloger/OCLC Enhance Coordinator
Lehman College of the City University of New York