PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTUEE OF THE AUSTEALIAN FLORA. 129 



words, whether of classic or of personal origin, is the source 

 of frequent complaint against botany, and needs reform ; but 

 in correcting one error care must be taken not to fall into 

 another, for the adoption of popular names, such as some 

 persons suggest, would be of little service beyond an English- 

 speaking community, nor would they escape the charge of 

 leading to confusion in a country in which different districts 

 call the same thing by different names. 



The distinction between species and varieties is a matter 

 of greater difficulty for the botanist of the future. In days 

 past, perhaps, botanists Avere too fond of increasing the 

 number of species, considering that every character in 

 species was fixed, and that every deviation from some 

 original type was to be regarded as distinct. Experience 

 has proved that certain species are subjecit to a vast amount 

 of A^ariation ; that surrounding circumstances (such as soil, 

 climate, and elevation above the sea-level) tend to perpetuate 

 such differences ; and that cultivation in soiaie instances 

 produces abnormal forms not simply in size and colour, but 

 in marked features. Such being the case, it happens that 

 wliat some botanists regard as species others describe as mere 

 varieties ; and hence in comparing the Flora Australiensis 

 with Baron von Mueller's Census of Australian Plants, it may 

 sometimes be found that there are differences of opinion as 

 to the specific value of certain plants, and that characters 

 once deemed essential are not regarded as uniformly per- 

 manent. Since the publication of Lyell on the Antiquity 

 of Man, and Darwin on the Origin of Species, naturalists 

 have modified their views on the subject of species, and 

 have differed considerably on the characters which constitute 

 such, and therefore it is not surprising that great men like 

 the late Mr. Bentham and Baron von Mueller should differ in 

 their estimate of species. One cause of difference is the 

 fact that the former had to form his conclusions almost 

 entirely from dried specimens, whilst the latter in many 

 instances had the opportunity of observing plants in their 

 native state, and ot noticing peculiarities in individuals. 

 Without referring to such protean genera as Eucalyptus or 

 Acacia — in which there seem to be connecting links between 

 some of the so-called species — several genera among the 

 Leguminosse present great difficulties to the systematic 

 botanist, and future scientists must yet decide how far 

 apparent differences affect specific value. The same remark 

 applies to the Orchidege, an order comprising many minute 



K 



