Thank you for the answer.
You are correct, the message was not intended for the list.
You are also correct in that I should have created a new record and
added references. My own institution has undergone name changes and
there are NARs for each name, each with references. I knew that, yet
somehow made this mistake.
But in the changed record, the references were removed and in the new
record there are no references. It seems clear that the two are the
same, even the Isthmus article mentions Midland, Texas.
On 1/25/2011 10:11 AM, Moore, Richard wrote:
> I'm not sure if you intended this to go to the PCC list, but here is an answer: when a corporate body changes its name, the authority for the previous name is usually retained, and a new authority created for the new name. The two are linked by earlier-later see-also references. I've understood this to be so that the earlier name can still be used on records for material entered under that name; also, when corporate bodies change their names, they often change the nature of what they are, through merger, de-merger, and so on.
> For subject usage, LCSH prescribes that only the latest name applicable to the work should be used, unless the item also contains significant material relating to an earlier name.
> This is different from the treatment of personal name changes, where the authorised heading itself is changed.
> I hope this helps.
> Richard Moore
> Authority Control Team Manager
> The British Library
> Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]