Recent reports on Australia's research infrastructure have highlighted the decline in serial subscriptions in academic and research libraries during the 1990s. They have used the annual CAUL statistics in order to support these claims. This article examines the CAUL statistics for serial subscriptions, indicating their numerous flaws when used for longitudinal analysis. Alternative interpretations of the statistics are given, which provide some evidence that rates of subscriptions to print periodicals were sustained for a longer period than previous uses of the data have suggested. (Contains 4 graphs, 3 tables and 19 notes.)