:\r2 T. (i. HALLE. [Nov. 11)13. 



iiu restricted use of new specific names. The aim must always 

 be identification of those forms whose identity appears 

 probal)le, and there is no doubt that with the increase of 

 the material more and more 'species' will be found to be iden- 

 tical. Professor Seward, indeed, has clearly demonstrated, 

 how a large material makes it possible to recognize as mere 

 varieties forms which in case of a smaller number of speci- 

 mens no doubt would be described as different species — 

 linffordia Gocpperti of the AVealden-flora being a very good 

 instance. <)nly, it would appear that, when a less extensive 

 material has to be described, a narrow delimitation would 

 represent the more cautious course. The chief point is, of 

 course, that the material should be sufficient for a description. 

 It need not be large, since even a fairly small material may 

 often be valuable, but it must be distinct and it must be 

 well described and w^ell figured. If these demands are met 

 the species may be safely used as a basis for future discus- 

 sion and thus answers its purpose, even if it is ultimately 

 found to be a mere synonym. 



After this abstract discussion the most important of Pro- 

 fessor Seward's remarks on the determinations of the Antarctic 

 plant-remains will be considered. These remarks, as already 

 mentioned, for the most part are closely connected with the 

 general standpoint of Professor Seward, and in such cases 

 need no other discussion than the general exposition given above. 

 The case of the only Eqnisetites-sjyecies of the Hope Bay 

 Flora may be mentioned, however, as a good illustration. The 

 close resemblance of some specimens of the Antarctic species 

 E. approxiniatiis Natii. to E. rajinalialensis Schimp. is noted 

 in my memoir, with the remark that both forms may be 

 identical. The Indian material of the species is very poor, 

 however, consisting only of diaphragms, short pieces of stems 

 and broken leaf-sheaths with teeth indistinct or wanting.^ 



^ The specimens in Feistmantei/s PI. 35, figs. 3, 4, are probably inverted. 



