100 



of systematic botany. As to the form which we predicate of the vegetable world, 

 or as to how far we understand the latter in so doing, I shah 1 speak in detail 

 later on. But, for the present and for the sake of convenience, I shall; merely give 

 this general answer :- - Forms of plants are originally numerous ; but in their 

 real existence, they are all the same. They present different phenomena according 

 to the different circumstances conditioned from eternity to eternity by the causal 

 nexus. Their forms in different phenomena are naturally in inter-relation like 

 the naeshes of a net 2) ; but not in a serial relation like the branches of a tree. 

 We have spoken just now of real existence and phenomena separately ; 

 but real meanings of both terms are comprehensible only in their perfect unity 

 in oneness. In other words, species are quite similar in their basic cha- 

 racters ; but they are different in their particular manifestations. Here again, 

 as in the above case, both basic characters and particular manifestations are 

 to be understood only in their unity --not separately. 



3. SPECIES. 



We have spoken above of species but vaguely. Now, what is meant 

 exactly by species. It must, of course, that the definition of species differs 

 according to one's idea of what constitutes a spacies. My opinion is that a 

 species is an individual presenting a certain manifestation in a certain gene- 



themselves. As to the principal aim of systematic botany, it could not be more eloquently ex- 

 plained than by a sentence on the title page of the thesaurus. It runs : " It is impossible that 

 we should thoroughly understand the nature of the signs, unless we first properly consider anil 

 arrange the things signified " The more I look at ROGET'S work, the more I become astonished 

 at the curious coincidence in the construction of the thesaurus and that of my present paper. 

 His dictionary consists of four parts, namely : 1, introduction explaining the theory and principle 

 upon which his classification is grounded ; 2, plan of classification and synopsis of categories ; 

 3, the thesaurus itself ; 4, index. His introduction somewhat corresponds to the theoretical part of 

 the present paper ; his plan and synopsis exactly answer to the static classification taken in my 

 paper as a framework or nucleus for the construction of my scheme ; his thesaurus accords with 

 my dynamic system and its explanation ; and finally his index is constructed exactly like my 

 index. This agreement shows, I sincerely believe, that things like words or plants are all under 

 the rule of the same universal law. Cf. ROGET, P. M. Thesaurus of English words and phrases,, 

 classified and arranged, so as to facilitate the expression of ideas and assist in literary composition 

 (New Impression, 1918). 



2) EOGET, P. M. 1. c p. XXVIII. The same network - like relation of species is suggested 

 in the following paper : LOTSY, J. P. Versuche iiber Artbastarde und Betrachtungen uber 

 die Moglichkeit .einer Evolution trotz Artbestiindigkeit, in Zeitschr. indukt, Abst, u. Vererbungs. 

 YIII. Heft 4, (1912) p. 331. 



