Nhu wrote: Philosophically, I think it's unethical to charge excess money for knowledge be it in books or journals. I do understand the cost of production, but making a nice profit goes against my ethics. While I don't think much money is really being made from books like this, I think part of the problem is the publisher is unwilling to invest enough to make a larger run. A larger run that would lower costs and provide enough supply to last a few years. I'm sure as someone mentioned earlier this will sell out relatively fast. It's the production model they've chosen and I'm sure it fits their goals. What I do find outrageous is the online sources for journal articles. If an author submits a new species for publication they aren't paid for it. I understand the high costs of production for journals and the need to maintain their expensive subscriptions. What I don't see is the need for a third party to sell an individual article for $30. Correct me if I'm wrong but the author doesn't receive any of this. For the taxonomists out there, when a new species is submitted and published, is there even a copyright on it? If so who owns it. Often you can find a free version elsewhere, but many times you can't. I've always felt pure scientific publications like this should be public domain as they are supposed to be accepted as standards in their field and used by other researchers, the public, etc. It wouldn't be as aggravating if university libraries weren't forced to drop subscriptions due to budget cuts, but even then many people just don't have access. Tim Chapman