2 7 o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



Few zoologists realize that the usefulness to the systematist of any 

 characteristic of an animal depends on the end in view. Since species- 

 are the units with which our work is chiefly done, their most usable 

 characters are those which will readily distinguish them from each 

 other. But when we try to arrange them in genera and show the nat- 

 ural interrelationships of any group, the characters in which they are 

 alike are of far more importance than those in which they differ. 

 For defining species then we are often justified in using characters 

 which seem to us trivial and of no significance. Not infrequently 

 newly proposed species are condemned because the characters on which 

 they are based are said to be " so trivial." When this criticism is ex- 

 amined, however, it will be found that it really confuses two very 

 different things which may be illustrated as follows. A newly described 

 bird is said to differ from another species in having the iris white in- 

 stead of brown and the tail feathers tipped with cream-color instead of 

 yellow. Such differences are certainly trivial, but experience has taught 

 us that the color of the iris rarely, if ever, shows such a degree of 

 diversity within a single species, and if the examination of a fair 

 amount of material shows the two characters given to be constant, the 

 validity of the species can hardly be questioned. If, however, the new 

 bird is said to be characterized by a longer bill, a more markedly yel- 

 low tinge below and a greater amount of yellow on the tail feathers, 

 these characters would not only be considered trivial but we should be 

 justified in being skeptical of the validity of the species because ex- 

 perience has taught us that such characters are subject to very great 

 diversity. If new species are to be condemned, then accuracy demands 

 that it shall not be because the characters assigned are trivial, but be- 

 cause they are inconstant and hence unreliable. When we come to 

 genera, however, while it is of course desirable that the characters 

 should not be trivial in any sense, the essential point is that they 

 should have some significance, either historical or physiological. 

 These two terms are not synonymous, for such a structure as the vermi- 

 form appendix in man has a historical, though apparently not a physio- 

 logical, significance. Usually, significant characters are more or less- 

 conspicuous, and I am strongly inclined to believe that where they 

 are internal, or otherwise difficult to ascertain, they are associated with 

 external, or in some way obvious, characters. The formation of genera 

 based on larval characters, or those of some other special stage of de- 

 velopment, is greatly to be deplored, and I have no doubt that if such- 

 groups really represent natural relationships, differential characters- 

 will be found in the adults. If they are not, it seems to me clear that, 

 notwithstanding the possibilities of what we call " parallelism " and 

 "convergence," the characters of the special stage are temporary- 

 adaptations of variable significance. It is impossible to designate any 



