SPECIES AS TO variation; ETC. 183 



they may stand nntll they are put down by evidence, 

 direct or circumstantial. Doubtless a species may 

 rightfully be condemned on good circumstantial evi- 

 dence. But vrhat course does De Candolle pursue in 

 the case — of every-day occmTence to most working 

 botanists, having to elaborate collections from coun- 

 tries not so well explored as Hurope — when the forms 

 in question, or one of the two, are as yet unnamed ? 

 Does he introduce as a new species every form which 

 he cannot connect by ocular proof with a near relative, 

 from Vvhich it differs only in particulars which he sees 

 are inconstant in better known species of the same 

 group ? We suppose not. But, if he does, little im- 

 provement for the future upon the state of things 

 revealed in the following quotation can be expected : 



"In the actual state of our knowledge, after having seen 

 nearly all the original specimens, and in some species as many 

 as two hundred representatives from different localities, I esti- 

 mate that, out of the three hundred species of CupulifercB 

 which will be enumerated in the Prodromus, two-thirds at least 

 are provisional species. In general, when we consider what a 

 multitude of species were described from a single specimen, or 

 from the forms of a single locality, of a single country, or are 

 badly described, it is difficult to believe that above one-third of 

 the actual species in botanical works will remain unchanged." 



Such being the results of the want of adequate 

 knowledge, how is it likely to be when our knowledge 

 is largely increased ? The judgment of so practised a 

 botanist as De Candolle is important in this regard, 

 and it accords w^ith that of other botanists of equal 

 experience. 



" They are mistaken," he pointedly asserts, " who 

 repeat that the greater part of our species are clearly 



