With this fourth issue an accomplished fact, The Review, although still garbed in editorial swaddlings, feels nevertheless that it may be permitted the indulgence of pausing momentarily for a brief retrospective survey of its journalistic infancy -- a career which now reaches far backward to the sweltering days of July.

Since then there have been numerous minor changes in the organization of materials, and at least one major improvement in the physical appearance of the journal. Yet, despite a few revisions and additions here and there, The Review has sought, with some determination, and it is hoped, with reasonable modesty, to move forward in accordance with a belief that "subject articles," prepared by specialists and sufficiently long to permit adequate treatment of topics, constitute the most effective instruments for the performance of the purpose for which it was created. That purpose is to inform employees concerning the more significant activities in which the Service is engaged on national and state park lands of the Region. To serve that objective, more than a score of special articles have been presented and it is believed that, for the most part, they have been informative. To assure their permanent serviceability, a continuing index will be prepared semi-annually. In addition, there have been bibliographical items as well as miscellaneous notes of news interest within the Region. All of these features will be continued, for the present, in about the proportions that appear in the current issue.

The Review reaffirms these policies by way of responding in a general manner to numerous letters which have been received from employees and from readers outside the Service From Hawaii National Park, from the Coordinating Superintendent of the Southwestern Monuments, from Superintendents, Naturalists, Inspectors and Technicians within the Region, from professors in New Mexico and Arizona and librarians in Michigan and Massachusetts, and from persons who follow a diversity of interests outside the Service, there have come many comments.

"I received the July and August issues," wrote Director Fechner, and during my enforced stay in the hospital I had an opportunity of reading the entire contents of both...I found this material very interesting as I am confident all others did who had an opportunity of reading it. I will appreciate it if you will keep me on your mailing list."

The Review is happy to report that a clear majority of its letters offer similarly gratifying appraisals. Along with the pats on the back, however, there have been some sharp belts on the chin, and it is hoped the effect has been salutary and that there is a visible mending of our editorial ways. In any case, The Review continues to welcome comments, tasty or sour, and invites its readers to offer suggestions and materials.