92 Muhlenbergia, Volume 4 
5. “Those species whose limitations are so faint or vague 
that we apprehend them with difficulty have no reason for ex- 
istence.” 
6. “Scientific classification does not require that every dif- 
ference in structure and habit be made the basis of a separate 
species.” 
7. “The taxonomist should look for resemblances rather 
than for differences, so that he may make fewer rather than 
more species.” 
8. “A species has no legitimate reason for existence whose 
limits are perceptible only to its maker.” 
g. “Experience must tell us what limitations of species are 
most convenient.” 
10. “A species that is not distinguishable by its diagnosis 
has no right to existence.” 
11. ‘A diagnosis should be brief enough to be remembered 
readily, for this reason Linne’s twelve-word diagnoses are worthy 
of imitation.” 
12. “Long and complex descriptions should never be used 
for the limitation of species, and when such long and complex 
descriptions are found to be necessary this is a sufficient indica- 
tion that the species should not be made.” 
Asa whole these twelve propositions are good, and we think 
Professor Bessey would have shown himself in a better light had 
he presented these and nothing more. But some of the twelve 
will bear a little discussion. . 
7. Does the taxonomist look for differences instead of re- 
semblances? We think not. When we are confronted with a 
plant new to us, we always first try to fit it in with some known 
species, and only after it is found to disagree, do we think of 
describing it. This is actual working practice, not theory. 
8. The intent of this paragraph is good, but its effect is 
spoiled by the last word, ‘“‘maker.’? Some people are inordi- 
nately fond of the term “‘species-maker,” and almost invariably 
those who use the expression do not describe species. The 
