l8gi ] The Future of Systematic Botany. 249 



to voice the sentiment of this section in commending all that 

 has been done in this direction, and in urging that the organ- 

 ization be made more general and extensive. 



W 



^^ _ — __ _j_ _ __ _ _ 



to say than to express a feeling of regret that it is not always 

 wisely done. This feeling, however, is not peculiar to any 

 kind of work, and it must be always a jumble of good, bad 

 and indifferent. It is simply a case of At let him that is with- 

 out sin among you first cast a stone," and the man who pub- 

 lishes nothing that he afterwards regrets is either a transcend- 

 ent genius or a simpleton. It might as well be accepted, 

 however, that description will continue as before, probably in 

 an increasingly miscellaneous way, for there is no feasible way 

 of restricting it, even if it were desirable. We can simply 

 urge, and continue to urge the necessity of long training, 

 abundance of material and literature, and a patience that will 

 be content to wait. Dr. Asa Gray, in a short paper that has 

 never been published, has this to say : 



"The publication of new species is always an anxious business to those fitted 

 for the work and impressed by the responsibility of it, and is lightly undertaken 

 only by those who have no appreciation of the trouble and labor they are giving 

 to the faithful working botanist, both now and hereafter. Some enter upon this 

 seemingly in the spirit in which an ill-disposed person was recommended to 

 throw as much dirt as possible, on the chance that some may stick. The ag- 

 grieved author of monographs, floras, and bibliographical indexes has all this 

 dirt (matter out of place) to take care of. He has enough to do in rightly ar- 

 ranging and ascertaining the limits and characters of the species of a difficult 

 genus, without being vexed with riddles which, when solved, often prove to be 

 curiosities of ignorance or marvels of recklessness. The added misfortune is, 

 that superfluous names, however needless or absurd, cannot be buried in obhv- 

 ! on, but must be embalmed in synonymy. 



There seems to be abundant indication that, with a better 

 conception of the limitations of a species, the old characters 

 will yield in importance to new ones of deeper significance. 

 The microscope, which was necessary to reveal the existence 

 of any usable characters in the lower groups of plants, is rap- 

 idly becoming hardly less necessary for satisfactory systematic 

 work in the highest groups. While the us^ of gross organs 

 will probably never disappear in specific discriminations, their 

 exclusive use must be given up, and such characters will be 

 supplemented by minute ones, which their very minuteness 

 renders of more permanent diagnostic value. You are all fa- 

 miliar with several troublesome groups in which minute char- 

 acters have already been made of great service in steadying 

 characters obtained from the gross, the largely used, and 



♦ 1 



