238 THE IfATUEAL HISTORY EEVIEW. 



alike did not necessarily denote in the book of one naturalist the same 

 plant as in that of another. Linneus for the first time gave pre- 

 cision to the terminology of the science, and made progress possible. 

 It is evident, however, that the precision thus imparted to science 

 depends on the fixity of the meaning applied to the term species. With 

 the gi^adual change in our views on this subject, and still more in 

 consequence of their uncertainty, no one now knows in any case what 

 meaning to attach to a name. It has lost its connection with a 

 definite subject, and means now one thing and now another. The 

 inconvenience of this uncertainty has been felt by all working 

 botanists, and there can be no doubt that its removal would be a 

 greater benefit to science than anything since the introduction of the 

 binomial system of nomenclature. 



In the case of genera the baneful efiects of the gradually increas- 

 ing tendency to sub-division have been well pointed out by Bentham. 

 As the number of known species increased with the advance of 

 science, and as each individual species became better known, it 

 became possible to form groups lower in value than the original 

 Linnean genera. Tor a time these groups were defined as sub- 

 genera ; but this has been done more effectively, or, at least, more 

 systematically in Zoology than in Botany. In the latter science the 

 sub-division of genera, notwithstanding the eff'orts of a few far- 

 seeing men, has been carried to so great an extent that a reaction 

 has now set in. Each sub- division, of greater than specific value, 

 being considered a genus, is thought entitled to a name, and in 

 conformity with the principles of the binomial nomenclature, the 

 old generic name disappears, or remains only as the name of a 

 section or sub-order, intermediate between the genus and the order, 

 and as such is soon forgotten by all but a few systematists. 



The case is exactly the same with regard to species. Mr. 

 Bentham has argued, and we quite agree with him, that the old 

 genera are far more natural than the modern sub- divisions. He has 

 further dwelt upon the importance of making the names in common 

 use conform to the most natural sub-divisions. In like manner, if 

 it be admitted that the old Linnean species, whether rightly or 

 wrongly so called, be groups natural in themselves, and much more 

 natural than the sub-species into which they are divided, it must be 

 a matter of regret that their names should disappear entirely from 

 our nomenclature. In the case of the fift3''-three Drabas, which M. 

 Jordan describes, all of which he regards as dismemberments of the 



