Because 2.5C5 states, "If the publication consists wholly or predominantly of illustrations, give all ill. or chiefly ill., as appropriate. Optionally, if those illustrations are all of one type, give all [name of type] or chiefly [name of type]." and LC practice is to apply the option [I'm not suggesting that libraries are required to follow an LCRI if it is an LC "practice," but I would think some libraries might do so.]

And 2.5C2 states, "Optionally, *if the illustrations are all of one or more of the following types*, and are considered to be important, give the appropriate term(s) or abbreviation(s) in alphabetical order: coats of arms, facsimiles, forms, genealogical tables, maps, music, plans, portraits (use for both single and group portraits), samples.[BUT]*If none of these terms adequately describes the illustrations, use another term as appropriate.*" The LCRI for 2.5C2 says the LC "practice" is to use "ill." in this situation *unless* 2.5C5 applies, and even in the broader 2.5C2 situation non-LC libraries are free to use the option. (And from what I have sampled of LC copy cataloging, they often do so, although I haven't run across any examples of the application of the last sentence of the rule option.)

So, the LC practice is that if a book is all or chiefly illustrations of one type [portraits, cartoons, silhouettes, architectural drawings] one should select a term from the 2.5C2 list or another term if nothing from the list is appropriate, & precede it with "chiefly" or "all" to construct the illustration statement, e.g. "chiefly portraits," "all fumati," etc. At least that's how I was interpreting it. The original 1978 rule was pretty restrictive--you could only use terms from the list ["charts" was also on the list at that time], but it was liberalized I believe in the late 90's.

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Cartoons & 2.5C2

"my question is why catalogers [not just LC but PCC or otherwise], in those situations where 2.5C5 does apply, never seem to use the Option, especially since it is LC "practice" to "Apply the provisional option of the rule." What's inhibiting the application of the option, even in situations that seem to me to be relatively straightforward, such as an all-cartoon collection?"

As is frequently the situation I may well be missing some nuance here, but I think the reason nobody uses "all cartoons" or "chiefly cartoons" is because cartoons are illustrations. Would you also want to use "all fumati," and similar terms?