January 6, 1909 oI 
is allowed to follow his own notions without any guide what- 
ever, and what is worse still, without any restrictions. The re- 
sult is what we should expect. It is confusion; it is scientific 
anarchy. If an indefinite number of men were to contribute 
stones for a building, there being no agreement among them as 
to shape or dimensions, what would be the result? No worse, I 
am sure, than what has occurred in the erection of that portion 
of the edifice of science with which we are concerned to-day. 
It is almost incredible that we should have permitted the pres- 
ent condition of taxonomy tocontinue. Why mere tyros, wholly 
untrained in the underlying principles of the science of classifi- 
cation, should be allowed to contribute to the confusion of tax- 
onomy is a matter which may well make us marvel. But there 
have been words of admonition. Nearly thirty years ago Dr. 
Gray in his ‘Botanical Text-Book’ spoke of the necessity of ex- 
perience and ‘the critical study of the classical botanical works,’ 
and then said, ‘No one is competent to describe new plants with- 
out such study.’ . . Certainly our practice of allowing every- 
body, whether trained for the work or not, to determine the lim- 
its of species is taxonomic anarchy.” 
“A more effective deterrent could be provided by an agree- 
ment of botanists to restrict publication to certain botanical 
journals, whose editors should then exercise a revisionary con- 
trol over all publication of new species. I am well aware of the 
objection that will be made to such a taxonomic censorship, but 
we have gone so far in the direction of individual liberty that it 
has degenerated into license, and some such drastic measure is 
loudly called for. When we had masters in botany who were 
kings to whose authority all must bow, we complained bitterly. 
Now that the kings are dead, the democtfacy of botany is suffer- 
ing from the misrule of anarchy. If democracy will not control 
its subjects we shall have to return to a botanical oligarchy, or 
even to a dictatorship, for anarchy can not be endured.” 
Professor Bessey finally resolves his arguinents into twelve 
propositions. The first four say in substance that the number 
of species should be kept as small as possible. 
