446 



who hold that doctrine, 1 wouhl say, that if their views are right, we 

 cannot determine what a species is, unless we define it to be a mere 

 temporary and transitory modification of matter. The adoption of 

 such a definition may lead to conclusions of a very sceptical charac- 

 ter concerning matter, as to its origin and self-motive properties. It 

 is surely the most rational course to assume that an intelligent, crea- 

 tive power, in benevolence to rational creatures, would not so consti- 

 tute existing races of animals and plants as to elude recognition after 

 a certain lapse of time, and thus impress a character of fluctuation 

 and uncertainty upon all the works of creation, even upon man himself 

 as a species, and by a lamentable consequence, upon his intellect also, 

 rendering it (I may say) impossible to know anything, according to 

 the doctrine of ancient sceptics, whose tenets seem only to be revived 

 in another shape by the transitionists. 



Before I close this paper, 1 will add a few remarks on Festuca lo- 

 liacea, about which I have formed (perhaps erroneous) conclusions at 

 variance with those of Mr. Watson. Several years ago, I visited a 

 meadow on the banks of the Weaver above Northwich, where F. pra- 

 tensis and F. loliacea were growing together in profusion. At that 

 time I had serious misgivings about their specific diversity, and fully 

 expected to find intermediate links connecting the two forms into one 

 species. Since then I have also had similar doubts concerning F. 

 pratensis and F. elatior. This year and last year T have paid parti- 

 cular attention to F. loliacea, growing by itself near my present resi- 

 dence, and am led to think that it possesses claims to be considered 

 a species. It flowers later here than F. pratensis, and I have omitted 

 to preserve growing specimens of the latter for comparison. It is not 

 my present intention to contend for F. loliacea, but only to request 

 that further observation and experiment may be employed before the 

 question is treated as settled. With Sir W. J. Hooker, I am disposed 

 to consider F. pratensis more nearly related to elatior than to loliacea, 

 and would direct attention to the long outer valve of the calyx of the 

 latter, also to the numerous florets of the spikelet and to the genicu- 

 late character of the culm. Perhaps it might not be quite absurd to 

 ask how Lolium pratense is to be permanently distinguished from Fes- 

 tuca loliacea if the latter be considered as a mere variety, and I would 

 direct attention to the remarks of Sir J. E. Smith, in 'Eng. Flora,' 

 concerning Lolium as a genus. W. Wilson. 



Orford Mount, August 2, 1845. 



