i8 95 . NOTES AND COMMENTS. 159 



upon certain conditions the system is acceptable enough. The con- 

 ditions are, first, that the races in question shall be sufficiently definite 

 to be worthy of a Latin name ; secondly, that the relation of the sub- 

 species to the species shall be of approximately the same character as 

 the relation of the species to the genus ; and finally, that usage shall 

 be invariable and consistent. If zoologists find their discussions 

 facilitated by such a system, and if they will conform to these con- 

 ditions, we shall not say them nay. 



The whole point of the protests that we have raised against 

 certain botanists lies in the fact that these writers, while outwardly 

 employing a trinomial system, have violated its first principles. Let 

 us see how our critic's dicta work out with plant names. Anyone who 

 knows anything about the latter, knows that the usual term for 

 indicating a rank less than that of the species is " var.," but unfortu- 

 nately " subsp." is used often enough to make it uncertain what term 

 we are to supply when no indication is given. Take, for instance, 

 the first volume of De Candolle's Monographic Phanerogamavum, the 

 volume containing the names to which we called attention. The book 

 includes three large and important natural orders, elaborated by three 

 well-known botanists all of the first rank. In the first — Smilaceae — 

 by Alphonse De Candolle, subspecies are frequently admitted ; but in 

 the second and third — Restiaceae, by Dr. Masters, and Meliaceae, b)' 

 C. De Candolle — only varieties are found. A repetition of the 

 examples quoted in our former note will show the utter want of 

 comparison between the unmistakable binomial and the very doubtful 

 trinomial. Smilax Bona-nox Wvightii stands for Smilax Bona-nox, 

 subsp. Wvightii; S. Bona-nox senticosa stands, for 5. Bona-nox, subsp. 

 polyodonta, var. senticosa ; S. invenusta avmata stands for 5. invenusta, var. 

 avmata. So that, on " O. T." 's definition of trinomialism, we are right 

 once in three times, and this is a high average. If we admit Smilax 

 Bona-nox Wvightii, why not Smilax Bona-nox polyodonta senticosa, and so 

 on ? Should we then be any better off than under a pre-Linnaean 

 system, in which the few words by which a plant was known did at 

 least convey some information about it ? 



Esoteric Science. 



Max Nordau, in his well-known work on Degeneration (an 

 English translation of which is on the eve of publication, and which 

 may be expected to become the sensation of the dinner-tables of this 

 season), extends the method of Lombroso to a discussion of most of 

 the prominent writers, musicians, playwrights, and poets of contem- 

 porary Europe. We hope to give our readers a detailed account of 

 his book next month. Among the many symptoms of degeneracy 

 that he diagnoses in modern work is a fondness for esoteric terms, 

 for involving a plain idea in an intricate word. Signs of this tendency 

 occasionally are apparent in our own pages ; unfortunately they are 



