DISTRIBUTION OF ARCTIC PLANTS. 129 



doubt. Taking European botanists by number, we are confi- 

 dent that nine out of ten would have enlarged the list of 762 

 phaenogamous arctic species to 800 or more, and would not 

 have recognized a goodly number of the synonyms adduced, 

 thereby considerably affecting the assigned ranges, especially 

 into temperate and austral latitudes. In this regard we 

 should side with Dr. Hooker on the whole, but with differ- 

 ences and with questionings — with halting steps following his 

 bold and free movement, but probably arriving at the same 

 goal at length. Indeed, we freely receive the view which Dr. 

 Hooker presents as appropriate to his particular jrarpose, and 

 as the most useful expression of our knowledge of the rela- 

 tionships of the plants in question, when collocated in refer- 

 ence to the ideas upon which this memoir is based. That is : 

 " if, with many botanists, we consider these closely allied va- 

 rieties and species as derived by variation and natural selec- 

 tion from one parent form at a comparatively modern epoch, 

 we may with advantage, for certain purposes, regard the 

 aggregate distribution of such very closely allied species as 

 that of one plant." " An empirical grouping of allied plants, 

 for the purposes of distribution, may thus lead to a practical 

 solution of difficulties in the classification and synonymy of 

 species. My thus grouping names must not be regarded as 

 a committal of myself to the opinion that the plants thus 

 grouped are not to be held as distinct species. . . . My main 

 object is to show the affinities of the polar plants, and I can 

 best do this by keeping the specific idea comprehensive." And 

 further : " I wish it then to be clearly understood, that the 

 catalogue here appended is intended to include every species 

 hitherto found within the arctic circle, together with those 

 most closely allied forms which I believe to have branched off 

 from one common parent within a comparatively recent geo- 

 logical epoch, and that immediately previous to the glacial 

 period or since then" (p. 279). All we could ask more 

 would be some distinction (typographical or other), to mark, 

 1, undoubted and complete synonyms ; 2, mere variations or 

 states, local or otherwise, or undoubted varieties ; 3, such as, 

 theory apart, would claim to be regarded as distinct but 



