----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I would like to thank those who replied to my questions about the
relationship between the number of maps given in the physical description
and the number of sets of coordinates.  I liked Paige Andrew's comment that
calling it two maps but only including one set of coordinates was not
necessarily wrong, but merely inconsistent.  After sending my second
message I found an LC record for an earlier version of the map I was
cataloging which did include two sets of coordinates (and had "2 maps" in
the 300 field), thus validating my instincts on this map.  I don't know why
I didn't notice that record before I put my question out on the list.  Be
that as it may, it is always interesting to get the responses of the
readers of Maps-L.
 
Mark Crotteau
Washington State University
Pullman, WA   <<a href="/scripts/wa-UGA.exe?LOGON=A3%3D9709%26L%3DMAPS-L%26E%3D7BIT%26P%3D256952%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252FplainTEXT%252FPLAIN%3B%2520charset%3DUS-ASCII%26pending%3D" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a>>