Fune 8, 1871 | 
NATURE 
113 

divided, our laws of nomenclature require the original name to 
be retained for that section which includes the species which the 
founder of the genus had more specially observed in framing his 
character, and therefore, and for that reason only, it becomes 
necessary to inquire which was or which were the so-called typical 
species—the biologist’s or as it were the artist’s, not Nature’s 
type. 
I need not repeat what I said in 1862 of the comparative 
value of monographs and faunas or floras over miscellaneous 
descriptions, observing only that the immense progress made in 
the accumulation of known species henceforth diminishes still 
more the relative importance to science of the addition of new 
forms when compared to the due collocation and correct appre- 
ciation of those already known. Much has been done of late 
years in the latter respect, but yet some branches of biology, and 
perhaps entomology more than any other, are very much in 
arrear as to supplying us with available data for investigating 
the histcry of species and their genealogy ; their origin, progress, 
migration, mutual relations, their struggle, decay, and final ex- 
tinction. It is to be feared that in insects as in plants, but too 
large a proportion of the innumerable genera and sub-genera have 
been founded rather on the sortings of a collector than on the 
investigation of affinities ; and, indeed, that must in a great 
measure be the case so long as a large proportion are only known 
from their outward form at one period only of their varied phases 
of existence. 
The days of a Systema Naturze, or single work containing a 
synopsis of the genera and species of organised beings, are long 
since passed away. Evena Species Plantarum, now that their 
number at the lowest estimate exceeds 100,000, has become 
almost hopeless. The last attempt, De Candolle’s Prodromus, 
has been nearly forty years in progress, the first portion has 
become quite out of date, and all we can hope for is that it may 
be shortly completed for one of the three great classes of plants. 
Animals might have been more manageable were it not for the in- 
sects. Mammalia estimated at between 2,000 and 3,000 living 
species, birds at about 10,000, reptiles and amphibia under 2,000, 
fishes at about 10,000, crustacea and arachnidarather above 10,000, 
malacozoa about 20,000, vermes, actinozoa, and amorphozoa under 
6,000, would each by themselves not impose too heavy a tax on 
the naturalist experienced in that special branch who should 
undertake a scientific classification and diagnosis of all known 
species. In one important branch, indeed, the fishes, this work has 
been most satisfactorily carried out in Dr. Giinther’s admirable 
Genera and Species of all known fishes published under the mis- 
leading title of ‘* Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum,” 
and recently completed by the issue of the seventh volume. The 
sound philosophical views expressed in his preface to that volume 
(which, by some strange inversion, bears a signature not his own) 
can be appreciated by us all, and zoologists are all agreed as to 
the care with which they have been worked out in the text. 
Insects are, however, the great stumbling-block of zoologists. 
The number of described species is es'imated by Gerstaecker at 
above 160,000, viz. : Coleoptera, 90,000 ; Hymenoptera, 25,000 ; 
Diptera, 24,000 ; Lepidoptera, 22,000 to 24,000. Mr. Bates thinks 
that, for the Coleoptera at least, this estimate is too high by one- 
third, but even with that deduction the number would exceed that 
of plants, and it is probable that the number of as yet undiscovered 
species in proportion to that of the described ones is far greater in 
the case of insects than of plants. We can therefore no longer hope 
for a Genera and Species of insects, the work of a single hand, or 
indeed guided by a single mind. The great division of labour, 
however, now prevalent among entomologists may procure it for 
us in detail, with one drawback only, that the smaller the por- 
tion of the great natural class of Arthropoda to which the ento- 
mologist confines his attention, the less he will be able to appre- 
ciate the significance of distinctive characters, and the more prone 
he will be to multiply small genera—that is to enhance beyond 
their due value the races of the lowest grades—to the great incon- 
venience of the general naturalist who has to make use of the 
results of his labour. 
A Genera Plantarum is still within the capabilities of a single 
botanist, although he must, of course, trust much to the obser- 
vations of others, and it therefore cannot be so satisfactory as if he 
had examined every species himself. The last complete one was 
Endlicher’s, the result of several years’ assiduous labour, but now 
character ; butto prevent any confusion with ¢/e imaginary type, it would 
surely be better to call it an “‘example,” as, indeed, is often done. In 
geographical biology the word “‘type” is used again in another sense, 
which, however, does not lead to any misunderstanding. 


thirty years old. Dr. Hookerand myself commenced a new one, 
_ of which the first part was published in 1862, and which might 
have been brought nearly to a close by this time had we not both 
of us hadso many other works on hand to deter us, although the 
researches necessary for these other works have proved of great 
assistance to the Genera. As it is, the part now nearly ready 
for press carries the work down to the end of Composite, or 
about half through the Phzenogamous plants. In regard to 
works of a still more general description, the exposition of 
the families or orders of plants, we have nothing of impoi- 
tance since Lindley’s *‘ Vegetable Kingdom,” dated 1845, 
but republished with some additions and corrections in 1853, 
and Le Maout and Decaisne’s ‘‘ Traité Générale,” mentioned in 
my address of 1868, and of which Mrs. Hooker is now preparing 
an English translation, under the supervision of Dr. Hooker. 
Dr. Baillon has also commenced a ‘‘ Histoire des Plantes,” con- 
taining a considerable number of useful original observations, and 
illustrated by excellent woodcuts, but as a general work, one por- 
tion is of too popular a character, and in some cases too diffuse 
to be of much use to science, and the generic character too tech- 
nical for a popular work without any contrasted synopsis, and its 
great bulk in proportion to the information conveyed will always 
be a drawback. I cannot believe that the author can have been 
a party to the unblushing announcement of the French publisher, 
that it is to be completed inabout eight volumes. If carried out 
on the plan of the first one, it must extend to four or five times 
that number. In Zoology, Bronn’s most valuable ‘* Klassen und 
Ordnungen der Thierreichs,” continued after his death by 
Keferstein and others, which I mentioned in my address of 1866, 
has advanced but slowly. The Amorphozoa, Actinozoa, and 
Malacozoa, forming the first two volumes, were then completed, 
and Gerstaecker has since been proceeding with the Arthropoda, 
commencing with the Crustacea for the third volume, of which 
only the general matter and the Cirripedia and Copepoda are as 
yet published, and three or four parts of a sixth volume for birds 
have been issued by Selenka, treating the anatomical and other 
matters in greatdetail. Another general work of merit, although 
on a smaller scale, has been proceeding as slowly. Of Carus and 
Gerstaecker’s ‘‘ Handbuch der Zoologie,” the second volume, 
containing the Arthropoda, Malacozoa, and lower animals, had 
been already published in 1861, and to this was added in 1868 
the first half of the Vertebrata for the first volume, with a 
promise that the remainder should appear in the autumn, 
but which promise has not yet been fulfilled. Among the other 
recently published systematic zoological handbooks of which 
I have memoranda as published in various Continental states, 
the most important are said to be Harting’s, published 
at Kiel, in the Netherlands, of which up to 1870 only 
three volumes had appeared, containing the Crustacea, Vermes, 
Malacozoa, and lower animals; A. E. Holmgren’s ‘‘ Swedish 
Handbook ;” Zoology, of which’ Mammalia were published in 
1865, and Birds in 1868 to 1871; and Claus’s ‘*Grundziige,” and 
Troschel’s “‘ Handbook” (7th edition) for University Teaching in 
Germany. 
In a comparative sketch of the more partial monographs, 
faunas, and floras, I had wished to direct my attention more 
especially to the means afforded us of comparing the plants and 
animals of different countries; and with this view one of the 
questions I addressed to foreign zoologists was—‘‘ What works 
or papers are there in which the animals (of any of the principal 
classes) of your country are compared with those of other coun- 
tries?” The answers to this query have not been generally satis- 
factory. Where the zoclogy has been well investigated, we have 
popular handbooks, elaborate memoirs, and works of high 
scientific value, or splendidly illustrated. But short synoptical 
faunas, so useful to the general naturalist and corresponding 
to the floras we now possess of so many different countries, 
are very few; the statement of the general geographical 
range of each species, so prominent a feature in many modern 
floras, is still less thought of, and indications of allied or 
representative races in distant countries are equally rare. 
We have indeed several excellent essays on the geographical 
distribution of animals; I had occasion to allude to several 
of them in my address of 1869, but they are in general 
chiefly devoted to discussion, with statements of such facts 
only as bear upon the author’s conclusions, not records of* 
facts which may be useful to the geographical or general biologist. 
These must be collected from a great variety of separate works 
and papers, of which I have received long lists from Denmark, 
Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, and the United 
