258 ARCHER, ON MICRASTERIAS MAHABULESHWARENSIS. 
of sclf-division to lay the foundation, as it were, or become 
the primordial individual of any other described or un- 
described so-called species? Surely not—such are simply 
monstrosities. Nor do I mean to aver that minor differ- 
ences, of probably but temporary character, and which cannot 
be accounted monstrosities, do not occur. Species, indeed, 
vary here as elsewhere, but by no means so materially as in 
some other groups; and I believe I may state that m British 
forms, so far as my experience indeed goes, such trivial varia- 
tions are but rarely carried to that extent that there is any 
doubt or difficulty as to the actual species, that is, as to iden- 
tifying a form under observation with examples of the same 
form with which one has previously become familiarised. 
What is gained by the grouping together a number of allied 
but well-distinguished forms under a common name as pre- 
sumed varieties of a single species? I do not believe that it 
is more in accordance with Nature, nor even is it in our 
books likely to be more convenient. The very fact of re- 
cognising them as varieties presupposes and acknowledges 
their distinctions. If those distinctions be coustant and per- 
manent, it is surely better, even if only to avoid the inevi- 
table periphrasis and cumbrous circumlocution and resultant 
confusion in one’s mind, to give each a name, or having got 
one, to allow it to retain it. It seems to me that, no matter 
how we may arrange it in our books, our pools, (and may I 
venture so far to reason upon analogy, and dare to add that I 
doubt not, those of India?) will persist in offering to us the 
distinct forms, and, as a rule, resolutely withhold the grada- 
tional ones. Is it not more convenient, then, when we call 
each of these to mind, or speak of them, to have each asso- 
ciated with its name, than to be obliged to refer to them as 
var. a, [3, y, or 6, of a certain supposed standard or typical 
form—this latter, not in itself, perhaps, more decidedly or 
distinctly separated from any of the so-called varieties than 
are they from each other, nor less so; and possibly all not 
less distinct from each other than each is distinct from some 
neighbouring form, though it may be honoured by its name ? 
I conceive, then, that the ultimate forms in this group which 
the waters present should be considered as species, and each 
coupled with its name. Perhaps I may be thought to con- 
tend for a mere word; and that, in urging for the rank of 
species for each of these forms, it is a kind of begging of the 
question. But I am not contending for any rank for them, 
nor for any more or less restricted application of the term 
species. Let them he called ultimate forms, or any other 
name, or give them no systematic standing; but let each 
