NATURE 



[July 15, 1897 



places of all these stars as if they were as accurately deter- 

 mined as fundamental stars should be, because there was not 

 in some cases sufficient material for the determinations of 

 accurate proper motions. It is suggested that after an interval of 

 fifteen to twenty years these stars should be again systematically 

 observed and computed afresh. The catalogue, which is arranged 

 for the epoch 1900, further contains the values of Bessel's con- 

 stants computed for that year. There is also added the places 

 of twenty-four stars, lying near the south pole, which have been 

 chosen by Dr. Gill, and observed at the Cape Observatory. 



Latitude Ouservations at the U.S. Naval Observa- 

 tory, Washington. — Prof. W. Harkness describes the results 

 of a determination of the latitude, and its observed variation, of 

 the Washington Observatory in the Astronomical fouriml (No. 

 404). The method employed involved the use of two instru- 

 ments, namely, the transit instrument, of 77 inches focal length 

 and 4*86 inches aperture in the prime vertical, and the meridian 

 instrument of 30 inches focal length and 2-55 inches aperture ; 

 the latter could be used either as a transit instrument or as a 

 zenith-telescope. The plan of work adopted was to observe 

 o Lyr?e at every possible culmination, both night and day, 

 throughout the year, and also to observe four other stars near 

 the times of their maximum aberration, in order to eliminate the 

 latter constant from the latitude variation. The final result of 

 the investigation is given in a table showing the observed values 

 of the variation of the latitude. 



Ari'EARANCE OF D'Arrest's Comet. — A communication 

 from America informs us that Prof. Holden telegraphs that 

 D'Arrest's comet was observed by Perrine June 28 '9764 Green- 

 wich mean time. Apparent R.A. 30° 21' 9". Apparent polar 

 distance 83° 46' 29". The ephemeris, which was given in Ast. 

 Nachr., No. 3405, requires the correction, according to Prof. 

 Kreuz, of -3m. 58s. in R.A. and -4' "4 in declination. 



SPECIES OR SUBSPECIES? 



r\Y late attention has frequently been called in scientific 

 ^^ journals to that rapid multiplication of nominal species of 

 mammals which forms one of the most striking features of the 

 systematic zoology of the last few years. To take an extreme 

 instance : In eastern Europe and northern Asia there exists a 

 pretty little rodent allied to the squirrels, and forming the 

 single Old World representative of the genus Tainias. Until 

 quite recently this creature was supposed to be common to 

 North America, and was generally known as the Asiatic 

 Chipmunk ( T. asiaticiis) ; and it is not many years ago that a 

 well-known American zoologist fully recognised the specific 

 identity of the eastern and western forms. Soon afterwards, 

 that very same writer not only separated the American fiom 

 the Asiatic race, but considered that the former constituted more 

 than a score of distinct species ! To take another example. 

 The coyote, or prairie wolf, has been very generally recognised 

 as constituting a well-marked species distinguished from the 

 ordinary wolf, not only by its inferior size, but by differences 

 of colour and pelage. During the present year Dr. C. H. 

 Merriam, the well-known Government zoologist of the United 

 States, has, however, thought proper to split up the coyote into 

 a number of what he regards as distinct species. And it may 

 be added that he has done the same for the brown and grizzly 

 bears of his own continent, and also for those of north-eastern 

 Asia. 



It is, perhaps, needless to say that this species multiplication 

 is a direct consequence of the increased attention which has 

 been given of late years to the collection and description of 

 mammals ; and that, so far as the actual work itself is con- 

 cerned, we have nothing but praise to bestow on the workers. 

 Every one will admit that we ought to know as much as pos- 

 sible about all animals, and that if an American bear, wolf, 

 or stoat can be distinguished from its cousin of the Old World, 

 it is right and proper that the differences should be duly 

 recorded. But is it right or advisable to bestow distinct specific 

 names on animals so near to one another that it often requires 

 the aid of a specialist to distinguish the one from the other ? 

 No one will deny that the lion and the tiger constitute a couple 

 of well-marked species of the genus Felis. If, however, we 

 trace the Indian tiger westwards into Persia and northwards 

 into Central Asia, we find that it gradually assumes a longer 

 coat, and either increases or decreases in size. Consequently, 



NO. 1446. VOL. 56] 



some zoologists regard the Siberian (and, for what I know, the 

 Persian) tiger as a species distinct from the royal tiger of 

 Bengal. Apart from the question whether the two intergrade 

 in the intermediate area, if this view be adopted, we have now 

 three species instead of two to deal with, namely the lion, the 

 Bengal tiger, and the Siberian tiger ; but it will be obvious that 

 the iwo last differ from one another much less markedly than 

 they both do from the first. If we only use English names, no- 

 very great harm is done, for we still see that two forms are 

 tigers, while the other is a lion. In scientific nomenclature 

 the case is, however, different, for each form receives a distinct 

 specific name under the generic title of Felis ; and hence 

 there is no means of knowing by the nomenclature alone that 

 two of the three are intimately related, while the other is widely 

 different. Consequently, when we meet with the names Felis 

 tigris and, say, Felis sibirica, and are told that the former 

 is confined to India, we lose sight of the very important feat 

 that essentially the same type of animal ranges from Ceylon and 

 India to the arctic tundras of Siberia ; the difference in the 

 length and thickness of its fur being obviously adaptations to its 

 different climatic surroundings. 



Precisely analogous instances occur in the case of the wolves 

 and bears. The wolf of Europe is closely allied to the large 

 American wolf, and very distinct from the coyote, but if we 

 separate the European wolf as one species, make several of 

 the large American wolves, and several more of the coyote, 

 we have no clue to their mutual resemblances or differences ;. 

 and we thus miss much important information about geo- 

 graphical distribution which ought to be apparent at first sight. 

 Take, again, the deer allied to the red deer. The latter {Cervus 

 elaphus) is a very distinct species confined to the Old World. 

 In America it is represented by the wapiti (C. canadensis), 

 which differs in colour, voice, and the form of its antlers. But 

 there exists in Central and North-eastern Asia a deer so closely 

 allied to the wapiti, that from the characters of the antlers 

 alone the two cannot be separated. Now, if we regard this 

 deer as a distinct species, under the name of C. eitslephanus, 

 we have obviously no means of knowing that it is much more 

 nearly related to the wapiti than it is to the red deer, and we 

 also lose sight of the circumstance that whereas the group ta 

 which the latter belongs is confined to the eastern hemisphere, 

 the wapiti group is common to the north and north-eastern 

 portions of both hemispheres. 



But this is not all. By using specific terms in a wide sense 

 the amateur zoologist and sportsman is able to keep in touch 

 with the working zoologist, and thus to participate largely in 

 the more important discoveries and advances of the science ; 

 whereas when specific distinctions are made on the minute 

 differences now in vogue, he is utterly at sea, and probably 

 throws up the whole study. Very likely the pure systematist 

 may say that this is a matter of no moment, although this is- 

 not our own view. 



What may be called the revolt of the amateur and sporting 

 naturalist against the undue splitting of the modern specialist,, 

 has been initiated by Mr. Theodore Roosevelt, in an article in 

 our contemporary 5c7V«f^ for April 30, under the title of "A 

 Layman's Views on Specific Nomenclature." Mr. Roosevelt^ 

 who holds the important office of President of the Board of 

 Police Commissioners of New York, modestly styles himself a 

 "layman," although he is really a very accomplished field 

 naturalist, and probably knows more about the big game of 

 North America than any other man. In this article the argu- 

 ments are temperately, but forcibly put, the author laying stress 

 on some of the points alluded to above, and urging that in the 

 case of closely allied forms varietal or subspecific names should 

 be employed in place of specific ones. Thus, the Asiatic 

 wapiti should be a subspecies of the true wapiti, when its 

 name (Cei-V2is canadensis eiistephanus) would at once indicate 

 ts relationship. With regard to the use of specific names for 

 what are essentially modifications of one and the same type of 

 animal, Mr. Roosevelt writes as follows. " New terminology is 

 a matter of mere convenience, and it is nothing like as im- 

 portant as the facts themselves. Nevertheless terminology has a 

 certain importance of its own. It is especially important that 

 it should not be clumsy or such as to confuse or mislead the 

 student. Although species is a less arbitrary term than genus, 

 still it remains true that it is more or less arbitrary. If one 

 man chooses to consider as species what other men generally 

 agree in treating merely as varieties, it is unfortunate, both 

 because the word is twisted away from its common use, and 



