Geographic Cutters:

Formerly Independent Towns:

Since a town is classified and established differently from a section of a town, problems arise when a previously independent town is absorbed into a city. These problems are compounded by the fact that the work being cataloged frequently contains no evidence of the town’s past or future status.

To treat these materials consistently, and to clarify the cataloger’s responsibility in determining the status of these headings, the following rules have been devised.

Formerly independent towns, which have become absorbed into other cities or towns are classified, using the colon technique, as part of the city of which they are now a part. Whether they are classed with :2 or :3 depends on whether they serve as administrative divisions of the city. Example:

An exception to this rule is that if LC has only a map of the formerly independent town, and the cataloger has no indication of its later status, the town is classed in 4 or 9, with a geographic Cutter based solely on its own name.

If LC has previously cataloged a map of a town, then receives a current map of the same town, which is now part of a larger city, the town should be classed as a part of the larger city, and all previously cataloged items should be changed to reflect the latest status of the town. The Cutter and subject headings should reflect the current status of the town for the entire period of the town’s existence, provided the name remain constant.(3)

If a town once had an independent existence and changed its name when it was absorbed into a larger city, establish a heading and Cutter for each name.(4)