74 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



distinction, if maintained, slionld bo between "Taxonomy" and 

 "Anatomy." Taxonomist and anatomist both adopt the comparative 

 method, both are intent on determiuins; the nature and significance 

 of points of structural similarity and dissimilarity, of likeness and 

 unlikeness, of form and symmetry, and they meet on a common ground 

 as morj^hologists. In other words, so-called " systematics," properly 

 pursued, is but a branch of morphology, and the so-called 

 " systematist " is a morphologist ; and your anatomist, in deriding 

 the species-man, is discounting his own occupation. 



Eut this is not all. Sire, says the anatomist, for want of appre- 

 ciation of the value of anatomy you classify creatures together having 

 no intimate genetic relationship ; and except that you name me my 

 animals I give you up. Sire, retorts the taxonomist, you ojffend 

 me by yoiir over- generalization. You tell me that, because you find 

 certain points of resemblance between the nervous system of the 

 Isopleura and the Polyclad Turbellarians, the one group has had its 

 origin in the other. I regard you as dangerous, and recommend to 

 you the reflection that points of structural similarity such as these 

 may be but the impress of a common ancestry. You go further — and 

 dare to suggest,^ because you find a Rhipidogiossan with a dorsally 

 placed opcicidum, that the operculum and shell of the Gastropoda 

 are serially homologous i-epresentatives of the shell-plates of the 

 Polyplacophora. You amuse but do not instruct me, and I, too, give 

 you up. 



So long as the animating motives in scientific work are as diverse 

 as at present, this difficulty will remain. Haste, slovenliness, want 

 of real (as opposed to personal) interest, the desire for mere notoriety, 

 will always be productive of bad work in science, be it in taxonomy 

 or anatomy ; and I am bound to confess that the systematology of the 

 anatomist offends me vastly more than the anatomy of the taxonomist. 

 Species-makers who are content to regard the varieties of spine 

 development in the Neritinida) and of the shelly processes of the 

 Melaniida3 and Paludonms as a sufficient basis for rigid diagnosis, 

 or who offend us by their ^^ Extra extra^^s, may be left, with the 

 reckless generalizers among anatomists, to their own devices. Beyond 

 merely encumbering the literature, these people do no great harm ; 

 indeed, the vaporous speculator may even do good in bringing about 

 his own refutation, just as the breaking down of an experiment may 

 mark the era of a new discovery. None other than Johannes M filler 

 has reminded us that "Die Phantasie ist ein unentbehrliclies 

 Gut." The danger lies not here, but in extreme specialization. 

 So long as taxonomist remains taxonomist, and anatomist anatomist, 

 and nothing more, the terminology of the one becoming a jargon to 

 the other, estrangement must continue, and, each going his way, 

 counting his little own supreme, confusion and waste of time and 

 energy must result. 



Herein, to my mind, lies the explanation of our difiiculty : what 

 the remedy ? 



1 Of. Tbiele, Jenaische Zeitschr., Ld. xxv, p. 50S. 



