i 1 :;.";. II. i;.] CLAssiFirvTiox of fossil plants. 309 



jalaeobotanical species, especially in critical frnjujjs, is not a 

 taxononiical unit in llic same sense as species in the recent 

 flora. The fact of two groups of forms being described under 

 different names does not imply, therefore, that they are ne- 

 cessarily distinct species but only that tliey cannot at pre- 

 sent be ]) roved to be identical. And this, it must be 

 re])eat('(l. holds true even in the case of a broad classification. 

 The process of classification of fossil plant- remains, in other 

 words, must naturally be, on the whole, a synthetic one. It 

 consists in grouping together specimens into form-units (arti- 

 ficial species) and piecing together such different parts and 

 variations of a plant which have been described as artificial 

 species, in order to get as accurate an idea as possible of the 

 whole plant and its variations (the natural species). The 

 writer who prefers in a dou])tful case to regard two similar 

 forms as different species therefore only confesses his inability 

 to establisl^ an identification at the moment. He cautiousl}* 

 makes a pause in the synthetical process just because he 

 believes it to be a sound principle 'to keep the mind o])en 

 when there is no sufficient warrant for closing it'. 



The fact that the palaeobotanical species cannot be acce])ted 

 as necessarily coinciding w4th the taxonomical may be used 

 and has been used also as an argument for a broad classifica- 

 tion. Since it is hopeless to strive at a natural delimitation of 

 the species in all cases, it may be as well, it is argued, to use 

 the specific name in a liberal sense, as a designation for a 

 certain general ty])e of the organ in question. In referring a 

 questionable form to a certain palaeobotanical species, it is 

 said, the former has not been stated actually to belong to 

 the same natural species but only to show a certain resem- 

 blance of form. — This way of reasoning raises the (|uestion: 

 'what's in a name?' It cannot l)e helped that the palaeo- 

 botanical species to a large extent is treated as a natural 

 one. An observation made on one or some few specimens of 

 a ])alaeobotanical species is generally and naturalU' regarded 



