ENSAL se CaM eC 3 ate aR a ER ee eS: Me | or 
feo Seater RE er : as ant cada arhage Seda nA S Rate ony he aes 
32 Muhlenbergia, Volume 45h ‘ 
One recent writer puts himself upon record as opposed to 
the segregation of some of the large genera, and to the raising 
of varieties to specific rank, as well as the describing of many 
species. His argument is that the “splitters” are not sincere, 
but merely wish to attach their names to plants in order to be- 
come “notoriously immortal.” However, in that same brochure ~ 
he describes many species and reduces a lot of species to varie- 
tal rank, incidentally attaching his own name to many new 
combinations. To us this looks like a case of a very dark com- 
plexioned pot objecting to the company of a kettle, because the 
kettle, in the pot’s estimation, is black. 
These same objectors to present day tendencies would be 
horrified if we were to say that Asa Gray and his associates and 
co-workers were ‘“‘species makers,” and that they changed plant 
names merely to get their own names after the combinations. 
Yet Asa Gray, John Torrey, and other botanists of the past gen- 
eration described hundreds, yes thousands of species, scarcely 
any of which were known to them in the living state, and the 
climatical and other important conditions which the describer 
of new plants should know, were commonly unknown by them. 
In addition, the records show that these men deliberately 
changed names that did not suit them, and the substituted names 
became current because there was no voice raised in opposition. 
It is altogether right and proper to indulge in fair and 
sober-minded criticism of a system if one does not believe in it, 
but to attribute base and unworthy motives to others simply be- 
cause we do not agree with them is not the proper thing. The 
editor believes in “splitting” every time if there is a passable 
excuse for doing so. Years of active field work have led him to 
believe thoroughly in segregation, and he tries to do his work 
honestly and well. He also is ready to give credit to others for 
having like motives whether he agrees with their methods or 
not. Methods change in botany as well as in other affairs of 
life, and if a change is in the line of progress it will win out in 
the end. 
