<b>R. David Lankes.</b> <i>The Atlas of New Librarianship</i>. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press; Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries, 2011. 408p. alk. paper. $55 (ISBN 9780262015097). LCCN: 2010-022788.

myriad exceptions to policy. An accompanying CD-ROM contains real-world collection development policies from various-sized academic, public, school, and special libraries, as well as a useful classified list of vendors. Care is taken in noting shortcomings in any brief treatment, but these few aspects merit notice. Electronic resources are at times treated as new, different, intrusive, rather than the now dominant format in most CM work. There is no mention in the collection evaluation discussion of the brief tests methodologies or Howard White's work. Distance learning, now comprising half of the graduate population in some universities, is given one paragraph. Approval plans and the " big deal " are only briefly discussed. The price, at $75, is high for a paperback text marketed to poor graduate students. Where Evans and Johnson offer many pro/con positions on some topics, this work is understandably less developed beyond a presentation of core collection development issues. This and most CM texts are more monograph-centric than libraries will ever be again. Books and their trade were once central to CM work, but no more. The CM terrain is changing quickly, and it is difficult to treat this morphing in an all-in-one CM text. Dramatic journal marketing changes; the end of the paper journal; and the rise of the big deal (a term Gregory misapplies to aggregator packages) have redistributed the monograph/se-rials budget ratio in the direction of 30/70 or beyond. With the seismic movement of academic CM expenditures toward electronic resources, the CM librarian's work is only occasionally concerned with the details of paper materials. Departmental book fund allocation lines have become about the table scraps left after e-serials feast on the budget with their 1000+ title, often-undifferentiated, single-invoice journal packages. Are the many paragraphs here and elsewhere devoted to past CM and acquisitions processes needed to educate contemporary CM students and incoming practioners? For decades, selection processes changed slowly, and a review of evolutionary process and practice history may have been informative. With the disruptive and revolutionary changes brought by the overwhelming shift to a digital CM environment, why revisit and explain how libraries once did things if there is not a clear lineage to the present practice and methods? To let one example suffice: is any discussion of the Farmington Plan needed? It is not that this is not important, but there is so much to current collection management and such topics may best …