16 THE PHYLOGENETIC METHOD IN TAXONOMY. 



to begin the evolutionary analysis of valid species, and to take existing segregates into 

 account in doing this, as in the present monograph. For the immediate present, it must 

 suffice to treat all primary modifications of the specific stock as subspecies, though it is 

 known that these are not equal in rank or identical in origin, a subject that is further 

 discussed on page 23. 



In this connection it is becoming clearer that the herbarium type is always an inade- 

 quate and often a misleading representative of its species. It is merely an accident if 

 it happens to represent the species as found in the field, and in one undergoing active 

 evolution it can only suggest one variad out of many. In statistical and experimental 

 studies of the species, the herbarium type will retain historical value alone, and the 

 actual type will consist of a statistical expression drawn from hundreds if not thousands 

 of individuals, and hence available to workers all over the world. 



NOMENCLATURE. 



Purpose and value. — A uniform and stable nomenclature has been the goal of systematic 

 botanists for more than a half-century, and especially since the appearance of Kuntze's 

 ' ' Revisio Generum Plantarum " in 1 89 1 . Uniformity has been less sought than stability, 

 and the latter has come to be linked generally with priority. It is beside the purpose 

 of the present discussion to deal with the various proposals for securing stability and their 

 divergent results, though the fact can not be ignored that all of these have signally failed 

 of their purpose. It now appears certain that priority, attractive as it seems in the 

 abstract, has failed finally to obtain recognition as the absolute rule of nomenclature, 

 and it may confidently be expected that nomenclature will pay increasing attention to 

 other matters, quite as important as a stereotyped stabihty. In fact, it seems never 

 to have been realized that stability was destroyed more rapidly by the method of segre- 

 gation than it could be established by the rules of nomenclature. 



The primary purpose of nomenclature is to provide an accurate and convenient way 

 of designating genera and species, as well as variads and their forms. In the past, the 

 emphasis has been placed upon accuracy with little thought of convenience, probably 

 because stability has been a fetish before which all other considerations disappeared. 

 The phrase, "A name's a name" has been used to justify the position that the botanist 

 need concern himself no further than to apply any name he chose, regardless of all 

 considerations except that of previous use. This has been one of the most unfortunate 

 features of the usual attitude of specialists, and is largely responsible for the feeling of 

 most scientists and practically all laymen toward the subject. To them it is merely 

 a mass of hard names, with but a sUght appreciation of the needs of those who would 

 like to know plants. This lack of vision and sympathy has been one of the greatest 

 handicaps of the systematist, and it is the chief reason why nomenclature requires modi- 

 fication and improvement. Here, no more than in the recognition of species can personal 

 judgment or the lack of it be regarded as the final arbiter in the matter of names. 

 Thousands of names have no further justification than the caprice of the describer, and 

 hundreds of them are completely lacking in every canon of convenience and good taste. 

 Indeed, taxonomy is the only field of science in which the blunders and banaUties of the 

 indifferent and incompetent are respected and perpetuated. 



Future role. — It is as inevitable as it is unfortunate that the names of plants should 

 be made by systematists for systematists. Since the latter possess all possible degrees 

 of competence and good taste, it is natural that the standard for names should be low and 

 that these should need the protection of codes to maintain themselves. The final 

 stage in this respect is reached when it is provided that the blunders of the printer are 

 to be corrected, but those of the author are not! Such rules seem futile, since increasingly 

 high standards of scientific performance and scientific service in the future will cause 



