288 PROFESSOR BABINGTON ON RUBUS IN 1891. 



we call them species or varieties, or only forms ; for who can define 

 a species now that we have had to give up the old views that all 

 species were intended to be permanently distinct ? Now that we 

 know how extensively slightly varying forms are reproducible from 

 seed, we must cither accept each of these forms as an aboriginal 

 species, or give up the theory that those first created have been 

 kept specifically distinct until the present time. We who have been 

 trained to hold this latter view find it difficult to give up. But the 

 search after truth leads us necessarily to accept the former view. 

 Although therefore I have called many species forms in this essay, 

 I must not be supposed to state or believe that their characters do 

 not vary to a greater or less extent under changed circumstances of 

 climate or locality. We find that very similar plants gathered in 

 the north or west are often only very similar, although we give them 

 the same names. For this reason, when we gather a plant in Devon 

 or Cornwall, we look to M. Genevier's elaborate book for its name, 

 when Avorking in the east or north-east of England and Scotland 

 our attention is necessarily directed to the valuable descriptions of 

 Dr. Focke, or the Scandinavian botanists ; and even then we must 

 not always expect the plants to be absolutely identical. In accepting 

 nomenclature, I quite agree with Dr. Focke that we are not obliged 

 to "waste our time in studying the foolish writings of every ignorant 

 and mischievous manufacturer of names " {Juuni. Bot. 1890, 98). 

 I may quote another remark of the same author which seems to be 

 very applicable to what is being attempted in botanical nomen- 

 clature. He says: "We have far too many botanical rag-collectors, 

 who, in following out their view of priority, penetrate everywhere, 

 dragging matters again into the light of day which had better have 

 been left in the shades of night" (Focke, Sijn. p. 58). It is a 

 matter of mere convenience what plan of nomenclature we follow. 

 Calling plants species or subspecies makes very little difference, for 

 we have to define the plants just as much on one plan as on the 

 other. If we are to advance our knowledge and ascertain the 

 extent of variation of each form (and that is, I conceive, our duty 

 as students), we may fairly say with Lindley {Si/nnpsis, ed. 1, ix.) 

 that "our daily experience shows that excessive analysis is far 

 preferable to excessive synthesis." 



As has been remarked, it is quite apparent that there are very 

 many more forms of plants that are continued by seed than we have 

 been accustomed to believe ; and that we must give up the favourite 

 idea that those are distinct species which are easily and fully 

 reproducible by seed. We must also give up the once prevalent 

 view that a single marked character may always be depended upon 

 as the mark of a species. After much study we learn how difficult 

 it is to define almost any one of the recognised species, so as to 

 include all its possible forms, and so as to separate it clearly from 

 all possible forms of allied plants. 



In this book I do not pretend to have entered into that difficult 

 subject with the elaborate detail which has been so well carried out 

 by Dr. Focke ; but I have done so rather more than is usual with 

 other rubologists. Neither have I attempted to form an analytical 



