SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES, 24!l 



and liesitatinglj, but seems capable of universal application. When 

 he divides species or sub-species into varieties we find the name of 

 the more general group retained, and qualified by a second adjective 

 to denote the varietj. Thus, t. 18 of the first volume re- 

 presents Banunculus peltatus Jloribundus, and t. 22 Banun- 

 cuius Baudotii vulgaris. B. peltatus is for Mr. Syme a sub- 

 species of B. aquatilis, and B. Baudotii a substantive species. If 

 this mode of nomenclature were modified, so that the second name 

 represented that of the species, while the minor divisions into which 

 it is separable are denoted by a third name added to the other two, 

 we should have a system of nomenclature combining the generalisa- 

 tion, which is the most important characteristic of the old system, 

 with the superior accuracy of the new. It will be convenient (as 

 Mr. Syme does) to drop, as cumbrous and unnecessary, the Greek 

 letter now commonly used to denote a variety. The name Banun- 

 culus aquatilis by itself would be understood to represent a composite 

 or aggregate species, while names of three terms, like E-. aquatilis 

 circinatus, H. aquatilis normalis, E. aquatilis tripartitus, would denote 

 segregate or sub-species. The second or specific name must neces- 

 sarily be applied in the widest sense, and as in the great majority of 

 cases, there would be perfect agreement as to its value, our nomen- 

 clature would regain that precision which was imparted to it by 

 Linnaeus when he remodelled the system in use in his time. 

 Many difierences of opinion would remain as to the proper limita- 

 tion of the sub-species, but the presence of the second term in the 

 name would make these of little practical moment. 



Lastly comes the question, whether these minute details are 

 sufiiciently important to bring this trinomial system of nomen- 

 clature into general use. Though it may probably be true that 

 every species of plants includes within it a greater or less number 

 of races capable of definition, it does not necessarily follow that 

 these races are deserving of study in all cases, and by every one. 

 It is commonly argued that as they exist in nature it is wrong to 

 neglect them. Carried to an extreme the same argument would lead 

 to the conclusion that, because individuals exist in nature, and no two 

 are in all respects alike, it is therefore the duty of systematists to in- 

 vestigate and record the difierences between them. "Were we to 

 attempt this, of course all generalisation would be lost in the mass 

 of details. In a less degree it is the same with regard to races. As 

 a matter of high scientific interest, towards the solution of the 



