100 



of systematic botany. As to tlie form wliich we predicate of the vegetable world, 

 or as to liow far we understand the latter in so doing, I shall speak in detail 

 later on. But, for the present and for the sake of convenience, I shall^merely give 



this general answer : Forms of plants are originally numerous ; but in their 



real existence, they are all the same. They present diiferent phenomena according 

 to the diflferent circumstances conditioned from eternity to eternity by the causal 

 nexus. Their forms in different phenomena are naturally in inter-relation Hke 

 the meshes of a net'^' ; but not in a serial relation Hke the branches of a tree. 

 We have spoken just now of real existence and phenomena separately ;. 

 but real meanings of both terms are comprehensible only in their parfect unity 

 in oneness. In other words, species are quite similar in their basic cha- 

 racters ; but they are different in their particular manifestations. Here again, 

 as in the above case, both basic characters and particular manifestations are 

 to be understood only in their unity — not separately. 



3. Species, 



We have spoken above of species but vaguely. Now, what is meant 



exactly by species. It must, of course, that the defiuition of species differs 



according to one's idea of what constitutes a spacies. My opinion is that a 



species is an indi^-idual presenting a certain manifestation in a certain gene- 



themselves. As to the principal aim of systematic botany, it could not be more eloqiiently ex- 

 plained than by a sentence on the title page of the thesaurus. It runs : — " It is impossible that 

 ■we should thoroughly understand the nature of the signs, unleas we first properly consider aml 

 arrange the things signified " The more I look at Koget's work, the more I become astonished 

 at the curious coincidence in the construction of the thesatirus and that of my present paper. 

 His dictionary consists of four parts, namely : — 1, introduction explaining the theory and principle 

 uj)on which his classification is grounded ; 2, plan of classification and synopsis of categories ; 

 3, the thesaurus itself ; 4, index. His introduction somewhat corresponds to the theoretical part of 

 the present paper ; his plan and synopsis exactly answer to the static classification taken in my 

 paper as a f ramework or nucleus for the construction of my scheme ; his thesaurus accords with 

 my dynamic system and its explanation; and finally his index is constrticted exactly like my 

 index. This agreement shows, I sincerely believe, that things Uke words or plants are aU under 

 the rule of the same universal law. — Cf. Eoget, P. M. — Thesaixrus of English words and phrases, 

 classified and arranged, so as to facihtate the expression of ideas and assist in Uterary composilion 

 (New Impres.sion, 1918). 



2) RoGET, P. M. — 1. c p. XXVIII. The same network - Uke relation of species is su^ested 

 in the foUowing paper: — Lotsy, J. P. — Versuche iiber Artbastarde und Betrachtungen iiber 

 die MogUchkeit einer Evolution trotz Artbestlindigkeit, in Zeitschr. indukt. Abst. u. Vererbungs. 

 Vm. Heft.— 4, (1912) p. 331. 



