296 Journal of Trai'd and Natural History 



of various species, and the character on which they are founded, 

 as incidentally touched upon by Mr Adams, we do not know that 

 we differ much from his views, but as regards the value to be 

 attached to small differences, we must confess that we attach more 

 importance to them than he does. Speaking of the replacement 

 of the harrier (Circus cyaneus) by its pale representative (Circus 

 Swainsonii), in the more southern portions of Europe, Asia, and 

 Africa, he says : — 



" He who aims at uniting the meagre distinctions which are often made to 

 separate species, may, in this instance, consider how much of the little that divide 

 the pale and dull-chested hen harriers are the result of climate, food, and such 

 like ; but until we care less for making new species, and think more of applying 

 ourselves to the study of animals in nature rather than in the cabinet, there is no 

 prospect that any great strides will be made in the discovery of laws wliich shall 

 regulate the varieties and geographical distribution of species." — (P. 136.) 



This is a very common flourish of field naturalists, but it is mere 

 conventional tall talk, " palabras, neighbour Verges." The truth 

 is, that the close examination and observation of the meagre dis- 

 tinctions to which Mr Adams objects, is one of the most important 

 means we have of arriving at a knowledge of the laws which re- 

 gulate the production of varieties and the geographical distribu- 

 tion of species. It is not the amount of difference between forms 

 which constitutes species, but its constancy ; and as much can be 

 learned of the past history and geography of our globe, from the 

 presence or absence of the same varieties in different places, as 

 from the occurrence of full species in others. It must be 

 imderstood that, in defending the species-maker, we do not 

 refer to those who, for the childish gratification of seeing 

 their names in print as the authors of species, bring out as 

 new species everything that they do not themselves know, without 

 taking proper care to ascertain that it is new, or without having 

 sufficient materials in numbers of specimens, &c., to decide whether 

 it really is so or not. These men are the bane of science, and 

 have no claim to a place in its temple ; but we refer to the careful, 

 painstaking, and laborious student, who, seeing differences himself, 

 records them for the benefit of others. Mr Adams is justly severe 

 upon the former class, but we think he scarcely gives sufficient 

 credit to the latter. He says : — 



" This rage for species-making is not confined solely to cabinet naturalists; 

 but I regret to think, for the sake of science, tliat, ratlicr than be behind hand, 

 or that another should make the discovery, it is the custom with even many of 



