240 



THE STATUEAL HISTORY EEYIEW. 



into sub-species, tliougli capable of being so, when examined with 

 sufficient minuteness, we find these terms quite in accordance with 

 Lir views. 



In the new edition of English Botany too we are glad to see 

 ■at Mr. Syme Las directed his attention to this subject, and like 

 :ery one who does so is fully sensible of its difficulties. He very 

 'uly observes that the real point of difference among botanists is 

 ■lat some give the name of species to Hewett Watson's two first 

 (roups, namely, the aggregate species and true species, while others 

 apply it to the true species and segregate or sub-species. In a few 

 cases Mr. Sj^me has gone some way in the direction of synthesis, 

 though not so far as we should be glad to see him do.. Tor instance, 

 he divides Bentham's Ranunculus aquatilis, not into twelve, but into 

 seven species, six of them true species, that is to say having no sub- 

 species, while one only, to which he restricts the name B. aquafilis, 

 is an aggregate species, and is divided into sub-species. If it were 

 at all likely that this mode of grouping the forms would meet with 

 general acceptance it would be satisfactory to adopt it, but it will 

 assuredly find little favour in the eyes of others, and will at the best 

 be only one of many M^ays of grouping together a multitude of 

 forms. Mr. Syme may depend upon it that when once he has turned 

 his steps into the direction of synthesis, he will find no fixed resting 

 place out of the pale of the Linnean canon. Indeed, we think 

 that in assigning the rank of species to so many forms of the 

 section Batrachium, he goes against his own excellent definition 

 of a sub-species, as a form characterised by slight but constant 

 differences, which are transmitted by descent for an indefinite period. 

 In the case of Manunculus circinatus, he tells us that it can be dis- 

 tinguished by the practised eye without hesitation from all the other 

 forms. This is an expression familiar to us from the pen of M. 

 Jordan, from whose example we at once learn that it may be used to 

 prove anything. Surely it is a fallacy to assume that the eye can 

 duly detect differences, and that it may not also be applied to the 

 discovery of resemblances. The same eye can be applied to the 

 most minute micrometrical measurement, and to the study of the 

 widest panorama. Pity that it should be restricted in its use to one 

 or the other only. 



In Mr. Syme's book, however, we are glad to see the introduction 

 of a mode of naming plants, which will perhaps be available as a 

 remedy for the present state of chaos. It is used, indeed, vaguely 



