Vol. XIV. j Problems of Nomenclature. 123 



say, fertile infer se. Nowhere is this more true than among the GalU 

 and Anatidae, while many Passerines show the same fusibility — e.g., the 

 Carrion and Hooded Crows. The more closely, in short, any given 

 ' species ' is studied the more does this supposed infertility between it 

 and its near allies break down. We are beginning to realize that, as 

 Sir Ray Lankester long ago contended, the old conception of species 

 must go, and with it must go the word ' species ' itself. In its place 

 he would substitute the word 'forms.' Modern zoology furnishes 

 abundant evidence in favour of this view. For any given * species,' if 

 carefully studied, will be found to be divisible into a number of 

 geographical ' races,' often differing one from another only in intensity 

 of colour. The numbers of these races or sub-species, as they are 

 called, are being constantly multiphed as closer scrutiny is brought to 

 bear upon them, and as a consequence the term ' species ' is in propor- 

 tion losing its significance. Yet the existence of asyngamic forms — 

 forms which, while obviously related, are yet infertile when crossed— 

 as well as of forms with no very near allies, cannot be controverted. 

 These are to be regarded as so many isolated geographical races whose 

 annectent members have perished, and they might well be distinguished 

 by some special term were it not for the fact that it is at present, and 

 is always likely to be, impossible in the vast majority of cases to 

 discover which are and which are not asyngamic. Undoubtedly it 

 would be a good thing to abandon the word ' species,' substituting 

 therefor some term capable of embracing within its meaning what are 

 now called ' good species ' and all variants thereof. But such a word 

 would really connote generic rather than specific value, as these 

 terms are now understood, and there is little likelihood of such a 

 drastic step being taken by the present generation of biologists." 



We classify because the members of the whole animal kingdom, 

 from the highest to the lowest, are marvellously connected in 

 their structure. A classification, therefore, is simply a state- 

 ment of gradations of likeness which are observable in animal 

 structures, wherein the class Aves is incorporated. But we are 

 not concerned so much with the classification of birds at present 

 as with the admission of certain forms to sub-specific rank, 

 indicated by a trinomial system of labelling. In this respect I 

 venture to say that no scheme either of classification or of nomen- 

 clature will be entirely satisfactory to all until we symboUze our 

 bird names. The advantages derived by chemists when they 

 symbohzed chemical combinations were great. Some time 

 ago I pointed out the necessity of naturalists adopting a definite 

 and uniform method of describing the colouration of natural 

 history objects, and advocated the use of a colour chart.* This 

 has at last been accomplished, and an excellent chart has recently 

 been pubhshed. Fortified by this, I now venture, without 

 egotism, to urge the necessity of symbolizing in some form the 

 method whereby the relationships of animals one with the other 

 are indicated and chronicled. This will fix their sequence in 

 relative rank, from the lowest forms to the highest, or vice versa, 

 in a concise manner. Were we to use a chart depicting the 

 avine family or phylogenetic tree of ascent on the main lines of 



* Emu, vol. ix., part i, p. 48. 



