EDITORIALS. 
IN CONNECTION with the nomenclature question, which is proving to 
be one of great difficulty, it may be well to consider the subject of 
describing new species. It is a fascinating employment, : 
New Species but, like many fascinating things, has its dangers. That | 
plants must be classified and properly named no one 
will question, and that this work is very far from completion is no less 
evident. The proper classification of a form, however, is based upon 
facts very different from those thought adequate when taxonomy was | 
almost the only phase of botany. In those days, the classification was 
confessedly artificial, the purpose being little more than a convenient 
cataloguing of forms. In these days, however, classification is based : | 
upon genetic relationships as indicated by a careful study of morphol- 
ogy. As a consequence, those courses of instruction which are logical 
permit no independent taxonomic work except as a sequence of mor- 
phological investigation. 
The higher groups, perhaps, present the least difficulty in deter- 
mining the general relationships of a form; so that the details of its 
morphology may not be necessary. But even here such a knowledge 
of the morphology of the group, and of its habits of variation, is 
essential as can come only from what is called, for convenience, its 
_monographic study. In view of the immense difficulties of synonymy 2 
it would seem wise to -Teduce taxonomic publication within the limits | 7 ; 
of reasonable certainty. : 
In the lower forms, however, and especially in the case of those i 
& which me, ic such as many parasitic fungi, hasty taxonomic 
: = he a as age listo ee . ‘new species ” ‘dealing with such forms, in which the 
form and size, without any knowledge of life — 
Le If 2 botanical —— cond devi. eS 
