44 ENTOMOLOGIOAL SOCIETY OF ONTARIO. 



taking after ore parent, some after the other, some with a curious admixture of both ; 

 whilst others have no special resemblance to either. One does not require to (ravel in 

 order to obtain abundant evidence of this. 



"^' ,^ In following out this part of my subject, I shall have occasion frequently to use the 

 term species, so it will be well first to define the sense in which I use it. I remark, then, 

 that I accept without reservation Worcester's definition of the term, which he states thus : 



" 1. Appearance to the senses or the mind ; sensible or intellectual representation. 



2. An assemblage of individuals allied by common characters, and subordinate to a 

 genus or sub genus ; a group. 



^^ In zoclcgy and botany species is founded on identity of form and structure, 

 both external and internal. The principal characteristic of species, in animals and vege- 

 tables, is the power to produce beings like themselves, who are also productive." 



Here we have the term as used in connection with non-living matter used iti 

 classification, and as specially applied to living matter. In non-living matter, such as 

 soils, rocks and inorganic substances generally, species are separated by appearances as 

 they present themselves to the eye or mind. They are tested by the senses, when found 

 to be diff"erent, they are pronounced to be specifically distinct. There are no diflferences 

 of opinion as to their right to be called species ; and the reason of it is, that they are inert 

 and passive under external conditions. Specimens of the same species may be separated 

 by thousands of miles, and that for thousands of years and no perceptible change has 

 taken place in them. But living matter is constantly changing; from less to greater ; 

 from young to old ; from vigour to decay ; from one generation to another, all passing 

 on to death and dissolution. What a gulf separates these two kinds of matter I or, if 

 you will; the same matter under such different conditions. Now it is not in harmony 

 with what is considered to be exact scientific phraseology, to apply the same term in 

 the same way to two such differently constitutec\ subjects of investigation ; and sepa- 

 rate species in living forms on exactly the same lines as in non living matter. Taking 

 "appearance to the senses" as the only guide to a definite conclusion ; and yet that is 

 what has been, and is yet being done by numbers of systematists and the result is, con- 

 fusion and uncertainty. 



Take as an illustration of how this method works in practice, the oft quoted instance 

 given in Darwin's " Origin of Species," p. 37. " Mr. Balington gives two hundred and 

 fifty-one species to a given genus. Whereas Mr. Bentham gives only one hundred and 

 twelve. A diflference of one hundred and thirty -nine doubtful forms." Both are sup- 

 posed to be competent authorities, why this vast difference in the result of an investiga- 

 tion of the same material 1 The answer to the question is to be found in the method of 

 conducting it. Mr. Balington probably had a keen eye for detecting things that diflfer. 

 He surveyed his material and separated it according to appearances, and when he was 

 done he found that he bad two hundred and fifty-one forms in which perceptible differences 

 presented themselves to his mind, and he called them sj^ecies. 



Mr. Bentham was probably more critical. He might take into account the fact that 

 living forms were always liable to vary more or less, and he would see that some of these 

 forms so imperceptibly merged into one another, that he suspected that they were not en- 

 titled to be called species, so he united some here, and some there along the line, making 

 their diff'erences more perceptible whilst he reduced their numbers to one hundred and 

 twelve, according to his estimate of what constituted a species. 



Now that is exactly what might happen with any two investigators of a genus, with 

 numerous so-called species upon this continent, who separated their species by perceptible 

 differences. And that is probably what did occur in the genus that originated the " Colias 

 Oontroversy," or the one that has started the Argynnis contention. Darwin himself 

 ■worked on the same lines, and he has told in his own vigorous language what trouble he 

 got into through it. He says: "After describing a set of forms as "distinct species, 

 tearing up my manuscript and making them one " species, tearing that up and making 

 them separate, and then " making them one again — as has often occurred to me — I have 

 ^'gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I had committed to be so 



