of Carboniferous Species. 213 



Such is our method of determining species. And we are not 

 inclined to allow Prof. King's charge of it being too dogmatic, 

 nor yet that it is unsuggestive of philosophical conclusions. If 

 naturalists and palaeontologists carry out this method in their 

 determinations of species, we shall perhaps ultimately know 

 what is true and what is false philosophy in respect to them ; 

 for it will evidently tend to establish one of two things, — either 

 that species with persistent characters do really exist, according 

 to the old and more generally received opinion ; or that there is, 

 literally speaking, no such thing as persistent character, and 

 hence no species except \n the Darwinian or Lamarckian sense. 

 And it is, perhaps, just as much in harmony with the spirit of 

 true philosophy to search after truth thus inductively as it is to 

 adopt hasty assumptions as to what truth is when the means of 

 proving it are wanting. 



It is further objected that our method involves a cumbrous 

 nomenclature, and that it is wanting in "geologico-chronological" 

 precision. It is asked if " Spirifera Urii, var. Clannyana, is not 

 a cumbrous name ?" I might ask, in return, what nomenclature 

 has to do with the question. It is not concerned in the deter- 

 mination of species; at least, it should not be. I believe the 

 general custom is for naturalists to make names for the species 

 rather than species for the names, though there may be occa- 

 sional exceptions ; and the use of the varietal term Clannyana in 

 addition to the specific name is optional, though the Permian 

 specimens of this species scarcely seem to require so much im- 

 portance. In respect to the want of " geologico-chronological " 

 precision, I would also inquire if it is the object of nomenclature 

 to express the chronological history of a species ? When a shell 

 occurs in two formations, it must of necessity be named alike in 

 both. To signify, by the use of one term, that the shell is 

 essentially the same on each horizon, is the first thing to be 

 considered. Other considerations are of secondary importance. 

 In concluding his remarks. Prof. King draws the attention of 

 palaeontologists to the defective state of their knowledge of spe- 

 cies compared with that which naturalists acquire of the recent 

 forms. This, I think, no one will dispute. The acquaintance 

 which the palaeontologist can attain of species is at the best im- 

 perfect. He can have no direct knowledge of the softer parts of 

 the animal : all anatomical details are lost to him ; and, as Prof. 

 King remarks, there are other characters which are generally 

 beyond the pale of his investigation. But, without denying this 

 in the least, there would still appear to be no reason for sup- 

 posing that palaeontologists have not materials enough left for 

 the discrimination of species. It rarely happens that all the 

 characters of a species are required in order to determine it ; and 



