— 272 — 



This extrême ,,splitting" as well as the obligatory genetical analysis would 

 rentier the whole business of classification a mockery, the exact déter- 

 mination of a given spécimen practically impossible. On the contrary, 

 considering systematics from a purely opportiinist point of view, apart 

 from any prétentions evolutionary theory, 1 think „lumping" is the only 

 practical means of cataloguing the existent forms of living beings without 

 having to await the results of an intricate cross-breeding procédure. How, 

 indeed, could we henceforth class any rare or extinct forni ')! 



As to the other category of extrême „splitters", consisting of those 

 enthusiastic systematists whose ambition cannot be appeased before their 

 scrutinising eye has detected the largest number of novû^ s/>ec/>s amongst the 

 poorest material available, I think naturalists never can be too strenuously 

 cautioned against their fatal activity. This scourge of systematic botany 

 compels future générations to manipulate their fabric, and drives them nearly 

 to despair when trying to make head or tail of those déficient diagnoses. 



With respect io the forms and shades of tea, it cannot possibly be 

 denied that there exists profound diversity in characters between the 

 extrêmes of the séries running from small-leaved China type and large-leaved 

 Lushai indigenous In fact, a judicious choice of the proper forms so as 

 to prove. . . . what one wants to prove, may présent the following points 

 of divergence : 



China. India. 



Bush, dwarfed. Tree, loosely branched. 



Flowers early and richiy. Flowers late and poorly. 



Leaf rarely larger Leaf generally larger 



than 9 X 3 cM. than 12 X 4 cM. 



Latéral veins 8-10 pairs. Latéral veins 10-14 (-22?) pairs. 



Relative number of serrations Relative number of serrations 



generally above 30 2). generally under 30. 



Top leaf often reddish tinged. Top leaf green or yellowish green. 



Leaf surface as a rule smooth. Leaf very often uneven (buUate). 



Now, supported by such diagnoses as the above, we may readily 

 constitute two well-characterised species of tea. The difficulty begins 

 when intermediate forms hâve to be classed. And intermediates are more 

 frequently found than types, being either genuine or supposed hybrids or 

 wild-growing plants. Is the leppett tea, is the P'u-êrh tea-plant, is Henry's 

 remarkable spécimen, Chinese? are they Indian? are they bohea, viridis, 

 macrophylla, or are they separate species every one of them? Crucial 

 questions! 1 prefer naming them tea, to eut it short. 



It is, certainly, a personal view, based on the „vogue notion'' of a 

 species meant by Darwin 3), rather than on the exact définition dreamt of 



') J. P. LOTSY (1916, p. 68) aiso owiis to this objection. 



-') J. KOCHS 1900, p. 601. 



•*) Ch. Darwin 1859, ch. II. „No one définition (of the terni species) hasas yet satisfied 



„all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when hespeaks 



„of a species." 



