Tine to wrap up?

["John B. Thomas III, University of Texas" <LYAA066@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>]

     Thanks to all for your ruminations on sequence slugs: I got much more
than I expected.  I would say that no clear usage or preference emerged
(indeed, I found another term earlier this afternoon in the latest issue
of that coffee-table magazine for bibliophiles, Firsts), and I propose
to throw the unedited correspondence on the phenomenon, which I have
printed out, onto the collective lap of the ever-formidable Bibliographic
Standards Committee.
     A word of explanation to John Lancaster: I have tried to approach
this matter with a light touch throughout, hence my original subject line,
my bringing up personal preferences, etc.  I had only one purpose in mind:
what to call this thing in a note in a bibliography or library cataloguing.
I was only talking about the rather recent phenomenon of 1234567890 or
88 87 86 89.  *These* are not, to me, in code, nor are they statements,
as are "Third printing" or "Second impression 1957".
     For what I was and am talking about, I still like Printing sequence
numbers, although Sequence slug is almost as good a thesaurus term as
Silk ties (Binding) or Casting-off errors (Navigation).  John B. Thomas, III