animals are there. In the statements of fact he is correct ; bnt he errs in 

 the interpretation of these ditlereuces. His sight is keen, his reasoning— less so. 

 The lumper, on the other hand, does not perceive the differences, or he perceives 

 them only in a hazy way ; he puts them down as insignificant and passes on, 

 halting only if there is a conspicuous quantity of difference which impresses itself 

 ou his mind. His eye and reasoning are on the same level, and his work is 

 generally scamped. As he depends in his judgment on the conspicuousuess of 

 the characters, he naturally falls constantly into the error of treating as the 

 same what differs in non-contrasting colours or in vaguely perceived structures, 

 anil as distinct what diflers in contrasting colours, in shape, size, and other easily 

 noticed characters. It may appear ludicrous to the non-initiated, but it is 

 nevertheless true, that in one and the same group of animals — for instance, 

 Lepidoptera — the same kind of difference is considered by the same authors as 

 being of no significance in the case of small forms, where it requires careful 

 research to find the distinctions {EjiipL'midae, Geonietrichie, Tlii/i'ididae, etc.) ; 

 while it is treated as being specific in the case of large ones, where even a dull 

 eye cannot fail to perceive the difference {Papilio and other butterflies). Sombre- 

 coloured animals (some Sphingidae, Noctuidae), small forms {Epiplemidac), and 

 such with a uniform pattern (Aficronia, for instance), are generally great 

 stumbling-blocks for the lumper. The author who treats everything definable 

 as distinct has at least method in his errors ; the author who depends entirely 

 on what appears to him to be a sufficient quantity of difference is quite arbitrary 

 in his judgment. 



The errors of an anthor arising from physical shortcomings, lack of training, 

 and a certain fligbtiness in reasoning may leniently be passed over, if the 

 mistakes are not persisted in when they have clearly been pointed out. However, 

 the direct misstatements as to variation and distribution, which the lumi)er is more 

 liable to make than the splitter, are scarcely pardonable. If it is the object of 

 the systematist to elucidate facts, and nut to conceal them or to misstate them 

 so as to mislead, it is wrong for an anthor to suppress distinctions which he 

 has noticed ; to refer to differences which are geographical, as if they were 

 individual ; to consider characters as seasonal which he knows not to be seasonal ; 

 to pronounce a form constant, if he knows only one or a few specimens ; to treat 

 another as being individually variable, though he knows only single individuals 

 from different countries. In short, it is wrong — and may become objectionable, 

 because bordering ou charlatanism, if the misrepresentation is made deliberately — 

 to represent anything to be what it is known not to be, or what on a little 

 consideration it would have been known uot to be. Neither the author who 

 considers every form definable as being specifically distinct, nor his opponent 

 who treats as identical everything of which the distinguishing characters do not 

 ai)pear to him to be consjiicuons enough, fulfils one of the primary demands 

 on the conscientious classifier— namely, to discriminate carefully between the 

 differences i)resentcd by the various forms of animals he has to deal with, instead 

 of lumping and separating indiscriminately. 



