Bibliographical Notices. 381 



which forms the segments of the invohjcre : the identity of the two 

 alleged species is easily understood from this explanation. The spe- 

 cies of Convallaria, which have flowers jointed with the pedicel, form 

 the genus Polygonatum after Tournefort. Carex saxatilis of British 

 botanists is combined with C. Grahami (Boott) : the Authors remark 

 that Dr. Boott considers his G. Grahami as Fries's var. alpigena of 

 C. vesicaria, but that Wahlenberg ascribes to the latter three stigmas : 

 these perplexities have been now removed by Anderson, who (see Bot. 

 Gaz. ii. 253-262) has traced C. vesicaria passing through its var. alpi- 

 gena into C. pidla (our C. saxatilis) as it ascends from the low swamps 

 to the alps of Lapland : it may be added that Fries had previously 

 spoken of C. saxatilis as having either two or three stigmas ; and 

 of C. vesicaria var. alpigena as closely resembling it, but passing 

 imperceptibly into the typical C. vesicaria . There are many other 

 improA'ements which we have not mentioned, some because they had 

 been anticipated by Mr. Babington, and others because they are com- 

 paratively trivial. 



It now becomes necessary to speak of what appear to us to be the 

 chief defects of the book. The principal of these belong to the di- 

 stinction of species : " the Authors " (see pp. ix-xi) " are not in- 

 clined to believe that any one of the tests," — that is, of difference of 

 habit, however indefinable, or of microscopic difference accompanying 

 identity of habit, or of permanence under cultivation, — "is suffi- 

 cient :" they think that "a thousand years' cultivation cannot prove 

 two supposed species distinct;" that "there appears to be less vio- 

 lence done to Nature's laws by combining too much, than by subdi- 

 vision, unless where there is an anatomical or physiological distinc- 

 tion." Linnaeus is asserted to have taken " nearly all his specific 

 characters from conspicuous parts, especially from the stem and 

 foliage," which are said to be "therefore natural" : and prophetic 

 hints are given of a time " when what are now called genera or sub- 

 genera will alone be considered species" : finally, the Authors refuse 

 to partake in the so-called "neomania" for splitting, due to "the 

 too-refined ingenuity of the German, Swiss, and modern Swedish bo- 

 tanists." In these and the accompanying remarks, there appears to 

 be a confusion between the actual distinctness of species in Nature, 

 and the outward differences by which we apprehend that distinctness : 

 it is most true that a species " can neither for convenience be united 

 Avith others, nor be split into several" : we should certainly seek, not 

 convenience, but the very truth : but how are we to arrive at the 

 truth ? When we speak of one plant as distinct from another, we 

 mean that it is distinct as a whole, not as a mere collection of distinct 

 parts : the characters do not constitute the difference ; they do but 

 manifest it to our sight. No test can therefore be a priori declared 

 sufficient : all may sometimes fail, and yet the plants may be really 

 distinct. Science in such cases is not, as it might seem, impossible ; for 

 frequent observations under different circumstances by laborious and 

 sagacious observers, aided by cultivation, will doubtless finally ascer- 

 tain the truth. Of course many mistakes will be made ; but we know 



