310 DR. HOOKER ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF ARCTIC PLANTS, 
o 
* 
Observations on the Species. 
In the preceding table I have attempted to group the arctic plants under comprehen- 
sive forms, founded on a careful study of the plants indicated by the names quoted : this 
I first did with as little reference as possible to the labours of others, — endeavourin 
far as was in my power, to suppress my preconceived ideas, whether original or adopted. 
Having thus arrived at the nearest possible approach to independent conclusions, when I 
compared my work with the descriptive Ploras which I have elsewhere indicated as forming 
the basis of the Systematic Catalogue, I was surprised to find how many authors have 
directly or indirectly arrived at the same conclusions as myself with regard to the specific 
limits of the plants indicated. In some instances such revision corrected my previous views; 
but in by far the most numerous cases the summing up of this authoritative evidence 
afforded extraneous reasons for abiding by my own conclusions. The following notes are 
intended both to give these extraneous reasons, and to show to how much greater an extent 
than is generally supposed, the most able and experienced descriptive botanists vary in 
their estimate of the value of the " specific term " as applied to many of the commonest 
plants of the best-known countries. From the results of this and other most perplexing 
and laborious comparisons of the labours and opinions of the authors of many local and 
general Floras, *I think I may safely afiirm that the specific term has three different 
standard values, all current in descriptive botany, but each more or less confined to 
one class of observers, though more or less variable with all. With the general bota- 
nist it is a comprehensive term, and becomes more so with age and experience ; with 
the monographer of large and widely diffused natural orders or genera its standard 
is contracted at first, but rapidly expands in successive revisions of his work; while 
the local botanist, or monographer of genera or orders with restricted ranges, begins 
with a rather broad standard, which rapidly contracts. This is no question of what is 
right or wrong as to the real value of the specific term. I believe each is right according 
to the standard he assumes as the specific ; moreover, in the majority of cases all agree 
with regard to the absolute and undeniable distinctness of a moiety of the plants of every 
area * ; all agree with regard to the permanent distinctiveness of many of the subspecies, 
varieties, &c. of the other or variable moiety ; and all agree with regard to the propriety 
and importance of tracing the characters and ranges of varieties as carefully as of species. 
Still the questions remain— Should the specific term ever be arbitrary ? and if so, should 
it be broad or narrow ? I believe it must often be arbitrarily defined, and that it should be 
broad, because the object of botanical nomenclature is defeated by an undue multiplica- 
tion of names necessary to be borne in mind by the general botanist, whose convenience 
ought first to be considered, and also because the multiplication of specific names will 
demand a corresponding increase of generic ones ; moreover the daily discovery of inter- 
mediate forms, or new or closely allied forms, is introducing an incessant change in the 
nomenclature of narrowly defined species. 
od 
„ -„v,.«, p. ,, XKJl auiuc lueas £ 
ter 9 of species, and the division thereby of all species into groups 
values of the charac- 
