1911] Composition of Taxonomic Papers 209 



best taxonomists have placed their work in a questionable 

 light by means of unsatisfactory tables like that given above. 

 The only recourse in such cases is the original description, 

 which is by no means such a simple proceeding as would appear 

 on the face of it, as it often means a long, tedious search through 

 many volumes. 



One may call the aid of the extended generic description, but 

 the purpose of the key is to summarize what differences exist 

 between genera. Tables are meant to be short-cuts through 

 taxonomy; but I might as well try to run an engine on a rail- 

 way which has one track alternately on each side of the ties, 

 as determine a specimen from many generic tables. The use 

 of geographical names in the key above is pertinent. It is 

 just as difficult to climb those mountains as to determine speci- 

 mens from some keys. Tables of the style outlined cause loss 

 of time, besides loss of temper. We are all human; and a 

 scientist is not always the "dry, imperturbable fossil" the 

 joke-antiquarians would have us believe. 



Among species tables we see many of similar nature. Yet 

 here vagueness is excusable, while for an unsatisfactory genus 

 table no valid excuses can be made. If the relations between 

 two genera become too intimate, if distinctions fail — then the 

 genera merge. 



Sexual characters are often the only ones that can be reliably 

 applied in specific keys, and their use will be questioned by no 

 one familiar with the difficulties of specific determination. 

 Errors are possible everywhere, but they are offset by good 

 work in other parts of the paper. Most often they result from 

 a misconception of the specific value of certain characters. 

 The aim, however, to compile a table of practical value will be 

 easily apparent. 



Many of the difficulties of specific keys could be obviated 

 by more care in the explanation of the essential characters 

 used, their individuality, their variation, and their relation to 

 others. But is there an excuse for the use of such terms as 

 "larger species," "smaller species," "more slender," "more 

 robust," and the like, in tables without in any way defining the 

 limits of the terms? It is with feelings diametrically opposed 

 to pleasure that I plod through a table of, say, 25 species, along 

 lines indicated by "larger species," and "smaller species." 

 What does the author mean thereby, I wonder? At which 



