MODERN TENDENCY TO COMBINE SPECIES. 85 
Journ. Se. and Arts, xxxiii. 404), “ Dr. Hooker goes a step too far iu 
referring our V. blanda (with its lanceolate sepals and white flowers) 
to V. palustris." Again, in reference to Dr. Hooker’s combination of 
Archangelica Gmelini, De Cand., and A. atropurpurea, Hoffm., Professor 
Gray writes, ** I have no question (theories of derivation apart), that 
these plants are abundantly distinet, as well in their fruit as in their 
whole appearance." I will cite only one other example, the eccentric 
combinations of Campanule proposed by Vucotinovie. "The differences 
between advocates of this system are in themselves not uninstructive. 
In all the above instances, it seems to me manifest that theoretical 
views have alone determined the reductions ; and if this be admitted, it 
is difficult to deny that such a practice must be directly detrimental to 
science. In the many cases where the limits and complex relations of 
species are puzzling, what is wanted is an (Edipus, not an Alexander : 
we have to decipher the enigmas of nature, not to settle them by an 
authoritative cutting of the knot. A theoretical decision, since it is 
not based on actual observation, is, indeed, strictly speaking, an eva- 
sion, not a solution of the difficulty. Between the opposite views above 
referred to, I believe the prudent and cautious student will do well to 
steer a juste milieu course; in botany, no less than in the ordinary 
affairs of life, ** Ne quid nimis" is a useful and reliable maxim. 
The following excellent remarks of Fries seem to me deserving of 
all attention, especially from young botanists :—‘ Minus noxiam cen- 
semus levitatem, qua nove species hine inde proponuntur, quam 
temeritatem, qua magne ceterum auctoritatis viri, obiter inspecto uno 
alterove specimine sicco, dubia movent de plantis cuique in natura 
perito botanico distinctissimis. . . . Si enim consentiant in cardine, que 
in natura confluant aut constanter differant, levioris utique est momenti, 
utrum singulas distinguamus, an plures affines, quas cæterum con-. 
stantes agnoscimus, sub communi titulo comprehendamus e theoria 
easdem ob affinitatem ex eodem typo primario natas, quam rem nulla 
bi epis vel goes vel refutare valet, eum involvat petitionem." 
. Mant. iii. p. 8.) Here the particular evil of t 
modern tendens is well pointed out. Instead of attention being 
directed to critical and very possibly distinct forms, the practice of 
massing them together, undistinguished even as varieties, —— 
diverts attention from them, and thus impedes a careful and. 
tive study. Huh aiene botanists were thoroughly loci, fiy 
