EEMINISCENCES. Ixxxiii 



arranging them upon anything approaching to a natural system ; 

 we are obliged to employ a linear arrangement. 



Gandoger, in his remarkable Flora Europaea, tom. viii., divides 

 the genus into three, and has taken much pains to reduce the 

 number of species by arranging under each of his species those of 

 other authors which he combines with them severally. To this 

 attempt I have paid much attention, but have not thought it 

 desirable to adopt the new genera into which he divides Bubus. 

 Unfortunatelj'' he gives no definition of these genera, nor of the 

 species, although he points out innumerable varieties under each 

 of the latter. 



As Dr. Focke remarks, there seems to be endless variation 

 amongst brambles, and therefore endless forms which may and 

 perhaps ought to be named and defined. It matters little whether 

 we call them species or varieties, or only forms ; for who can define 

 a species, now that we have had to give up the old view that all 

 species were intended to be permanently distinct ? Now that we 

 know how extensively, slightly varying forms are reproducible from 

 seed, we must either accept each of these forms as an aboriginal 

 species, or give up the theory that those first created have been 

 kept specifically distinct until the present time. We who have been 

 trained to hold this latter view, find it difficult to give up. But the 

 search after truth leads us necessarily to accept the former view. 

 Although therefore I have called many species forms in this essay, 

 I must not be supposed to state or believe that their characters do 

 not vary to a greater or less extent under changed circumstances of 

 climate or locality. We find that very similar plants gathered in 

 the north or west are often only very similar, although we give them 

 the same names. For this reason, when we gather a plant in Devon 

 or Cornwall, we look to M. Genevier's elaborate book for its name, 

 when working in the east or north-east of England and Scotland, 

 our attention is necessarily directed to the valuable descriptions of 

 Dr. Focke, or the Scandinavian botanists ; and even then we must 

 not always expect the plants to be absolutely identical. In accepting 

 nomenclature, I quite agree with Dr. Focke that we are not obliged 

 to "waste our time in studying the foolish writings of every ignorant 

 and mischievous manufacturer of names" (Journ. Bot. 1890, 98). 

 I may quote another remark of the same author which seems to be 

 very applicable to what is being attempted in botanical nomen- 

 clature. He says, "We have far too many botanical rag-collectors, 

 who, in following out their view of priority, penetrate everywhere, 

 dragging matters again into the light of day which had better have 

 been left in the shades of night" (Focke, Syn. p. 58). It is a 

 matter of mere convenience what plan of nomenclature we follow. 

 Calling plants species or sub-species makes very little difference, for 

 we have to define the plants just as much on one plan as on the 

 other. If we are to advance our knowledge and ascertain the 

 extent of variation of each form (and that is, I conceive, our duty 



