1898] THE STUDY OF VABJATJOKS P.lo 



(jiiickly ill nature, and more onsily under cultivation ; (2) tlie sub- 

 jective idea of a " species," vvhicli is only a mental creation, of which 

 Nature knows nothing. 



A systematist calls slight variations from a given type " varieties," 

 and as long as they arc linked (and there are not too many of them) 

 in a series, a^ to f/g' s^y- ^'u i^ often regarded as much a variety as a^ ; 

 but if a.2 to rc^ be wanting, then he chooses to call r/^ a "species"; 

 hut his naming it as sucli makes no difference as to tlie origin of it. 

 If Natural Selection has killed off r<2 to %„ ciq existed long before 

 Natural Selection came on the scene, call ag what you please. 



Natural Selection thus applied only separates varieties, and 

 makes them more distinct for the benefit of the classifier. 



With all this Neo -Lamarck ism has nothing whatever 

 to do. It is only concerned with tracing out the causes 

 which originate or bring about the variations them- 

 selves. These are now palpably plain to all who can or will 

 open their eyes bodily and mentally.^ 



I could criticise a good deal more in \h Tayler's paper, but will 

 only refer to the conclusion. 



Mr Tayler proposes a new kind of Classification of Variations, viz.: — 



Unadaptive Variations, i.e., " Wholly unfitted for their environ- 

 ment." 



Indefinite VaiHations, i.e., " Varying in all directions round a 

 central position." 



Definite Variations, i.e., " All variations being of selective value, 

 but that value varying in degree." 



Adeqjticc Variations, i.e., " No selection, except from general 

 strength." 



In this last I seem to recognise my own position : and all I 

 would ask Mr Tayler to do is to supply, say, half-a-dozen examples 

 of plants and animals, living in a wild state, which he can place 

 within the first three groups respectively. If he can do so — or he 

 may reduce the number to three each, if he likes — then one may 

 credit him with theorising ; if he cannot, then the above remain as 

 valueless a lyriori assumptions. 



Until he and other modern Darwinians can see — with Darwin 

 himself — that natural selection has nothing whatever to do with the 

 Causes of Variations, but only with the distribution of plants and 

 animals, in space and time, like Mr Tayler, I too " fail to see the 

 use of continuing this discussion as it now stands " in his paper on 

 The Study of Variations. G-eoiige Henslow. 



^ It is a great gratification to find, that Avhile I have been bnsy with these qnes- 

 tions in England, Mr J. Costantin has been studj'ing them simnltaneonsly on the Con- 

 tinent. His new work, "Les Vegt'-taux et Ifs Milieux Cosmiqnes, " consisting of 280 ^\i. 

 8vo, embraces a great deal of what I have given in my books ; but he also adds a great 

 deal which I have not touched upon. His conclusions however, are absolutely identical 

 witli my own. 



