AS A SPECIES 12 1 



to see these claims absolutely refuted. This is especially 

 true of plants, when, according to one authority, a species 

 will be divided into an amazing number of sub-divisions, 

 while another equally reliable authority refuses to acknow- 

 ledge the existence of more than perhaps one or two, claim- 

 ing the others to be only examples of individual variation. 

 Simplicity rather than complexity should be the rule, and 

 reduction rather than multiplication of species should prevail. 

 The abandoning of the positive craze for adding to the list 

 of names without unquestionable proof would save much 

 of the confusion which exists to-day, and when two 

 or more animals can possibly be considered as of the 

 same species, even though minor points have to be con- 

 ceded, it is certainly better to ignore the slight differences 

 rather than to separate them. I do not mean to say that 

 structural differences should be ignored, for they, of course, 

 must be considered, but geographical variations are so 

 great and so numerous, that we may be led into most 

 dismal confusion if we attempt to make each local race 

 a sub-species. Yet this is what is happening, not only 

 with the larger mammals, but also with birds and plants. 

 Species are, we all believe, made by geographical 

 conditions, as animals conform to their environment to a 

 great extent ; but until the different parts of the original 

 herd or race become separated by some natural division, 

 the extremes of the development, even though they are 

 conspicuous, do not entitle them to be called either 

 different species or sub-species whe7i animals i?i the 

 intermediate stages of developmejit f?iay still be found in 

 existence. In this way all the intergrades could be 

 arranged side by side, to show how the local conditions 

 have ailected the appearance of the animals rather than 

 how many possible sub-species may be in process of 



