lishcd terms, and the consequent change in the point of view. 

 In other words the trouble lies in using the word species 

 (which has a well established historical application) to cover 

 varieties and forms and in degrading the genus to cover sub- 

 genera and even very distinct species. This leaves the his- 

 rnric term "genus" and "generic relation" without a name and 

 throws it into the subfamily where it will have to have a 

 new name eventually to separate it from the subfamily. This 

 will bring us back to our starting point after wanderintr for 

 } ears in botanical fog and causing the change of several hun- 

 dred thousand names, and a complete readjustment of the 

 great mass of botanical knowledge to the new point of view, 

 and in return for it we shall get the questionable advantage 

 of having the variety called species, without as I have said, ad- 

 ding one tit'e to botanical knowledge. It is indefensible to 

 shift the application of the generic and specific terms as histori- 

 cally established. A datum point when once established should 

 never be altered or you vitiate the whole body of observed phe- 

 nomena as referred to that datum point. Those people who 

 change the point of view must not forget that there are certain 

 unchangeable farts of relationship that exist which practicilly 

 make up the sum total of botanical knowledge to date and they 

 must be recognized, and cannot be altered by throwing botani- 

 cal dust, or in changing names. 



This change of the point of view is well illustrated in the 

 work of De Vries. It is freely claimed that he and others have 

 created new species by certain selections. Before we admit 

 this it is well to see if they know what a species is. There is 

 no evidence that they do. Most of their species are nothing but 

 ■ varieties and many of them poor ones at that. But the ex- 

 cellent work of De Vries and its great value to botany, are not 

 at present under review. 



