315 



look more available in a legal pleader than in a writer on science. 

 After imperfectly quoting my words " about the frivolous attempts at 

 species-making," he puts an interrogation, — " But why this objection 

 to ' species-making,' — or rather the observation of minute differences 

 in plants ? " And by thus connecting together two things so totally 

 different, he is then enabled to hold me forth to his readers in the 

 character of one who objects to the observation of minute differences, 

 and who decries the attentive examination of species ! 



This is unjust towards me, individually, and not much less so to- 

 wards those readers whose judgment would be distorted by such a 

 strategic connexion of things quite dissimilar. There may be some 

 egotism in the illustration, but I will appeal to my own practice in 

 proof of the distinction. During several years past 1 have been in 

 the habit of collecting examples of variation in plants from every 

 available source, and several of these have been already put on record 

 in books, or distributed as specimens for the herbaria ; — but nobody 

 has yet charged me with being one of the species-makers. The study 

 of varieties, and the love of species-making, are thus completely dis- 

 severed in practice ; and therefore the strongest objection expressed 

 against the one custom, cannot justly be construed into any censure 

 of the other. 



I shall still venture to repeat my own conviction, that science is 

 much impeded by the prevalent habit of raising varieties to the rank 

 of species (as it is expressed), without first taking the pains to ascer- 

 tain whether they merge into known species during cultivation or 

 through intermediate examples. Things which are obscure and un- 

 certain are thus equalized with those which are clear and certain, 

 error becomes largely commingled with truth, and the difficulties of 

 scientific definition are greatly increased. 



On the contrary, I conceive that experiments have a decided ten- 

 dency to promote science, by removing error, and by substituting 

 certainty in place of obscurity. Suppose, for instance, I find a wild 

 plant which is distinguishable from known species by some peculia- 

 rity which could readily be described after the manner of drawing a 

 specific character. Two courses are open. I may at once invent a 

 specific name, write a specific character, and publish the plant as a 

 new species. Or, I may first diligently seek for other examples which 

 will suffice to connect it with a known species, observe it when culti- 

 vated under different conditions of soil, and raise it afresh from seeds. 

 The species-maker takes the former course ; while the experimenter 

 takes the latter — at least in the first instance. I do not think that 



