108 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LII. No. 1335 



would be subgenera) in the relation of a 

 supergenus to a genus. Suppose we apply 

 this to the well-known genus Panicum among 

 the grasses. There has been a tendency in 

 the historical development of this Linnasan 

 genus to split off one after another species or 

 groups of species to form new genera. Even 

 as limited by the avowed " splitter " the genus 

 still includes hundreds of species. The more 

 conservative botanists include as subgenera, 

 Digitaria (Syntherisma), Echinochloa, Tri- 

 chachne (Valota), Thrasya, Echinolcsna, Hy- 

 menachne, Sacciolepis, and several more, in 

 some cases, even Setaria (Ohcetochloa). I 

 should be willing to use Panicum in the 

 broader sense, but for the sake of consistency 

 I should want to include under Panicum such 

 genera as Paspalum and Ichnanthus. I think 

 that the technical characters that separate 

 these last from Panicum are no greater nor 

 more important than those which separate 

 Digitaria and Echinochloa from Panicum. 

 But Paspalum and Ichnanthus have been con- 

 sidered distinct genera by most botanists for 

 over 100 years. Paspalum is a Linnsean 

 genus and includes probably more than 200 

 species. The practical question then arises, 

 if the grasses are arranged in genera which 

 are really supergenera on the basis of the 

 relative importance of technical characters, 

 the more technical groups appearing as sub- 

 genera, will the layman — or the botanist who 

 is a layman in relation to the taxonomy of 

 grasses — gain in convenience. Many well- 

 known genera will disappear. Bromus and 

 Festuca, Sporoholus and Muhlenhergia, Trise- 

 tum and Deschampsia (Aira), are as closely 

 allied as Panicum and Digitaria. If Digitaria 

 is placed as a subgenus of Panicum then one 

 feels as if he must place Sporoholus as a sub- 

 genus of Muhlenhergia and so on. The lay- 

 man is chiefly concerned with the stability 

 of the names he uses. The method just out- 

 lined would, I think, be just as confusing to 

 him as the " splitting " of which Dr. Stone 

 speaks. It is very difficult to devise a nomen- 

 clature which shall adapt itself to the normal 

 srrowth of a living science and yet have the 

 kind of stability that the layman wants. 



It has been assumed by some that the 

 Linnsean concept of genera was a broad one, 

 that his genera are what we are calling super- 

 genera, and that later botanists have been 

 splitting off fragments, or dividing along 

 convenient cleavage lines, to form our modem 

 genera. This assumption scarcely accords 

 with the facts. He seems to have established 

 genera according to his knowledge, his con- 

 venience, or sometimes apparently by a mere 

 whim, if one is to judge by his grass genera. 

 Bromus and Festuca are Linnsean genera that 

 remain much as he left them; Panicum and 

 Andropogon are sui)ergenera ; Holcus and Aira 

 are assemblages of unrelated species or groups 

 of species. 



I believe there would be considerable con- 

 fusion in the application of the concept of 

 supergenera; and the names of the sui)er- 

 genera would be subject to continual change 

 as our knowledge of relationships increased. 

 Nevertheless, as a general principle, I think 

 it is desirable to retain minor groups of 

 species as divisions of genera rather than to 

 recognize them as genera. 



A S. Hitchcock 



Washington, D. C. 



the situation of scientific men in 



RUSSIA 



To THE Editor of Science: In your issue 

 of April 23 there is reproduced a letter from 

 Professor Babkin, of the University of Odessa, 

 in which the following statement occurs: 



The bolshevio revolution has brought Russia into 

 such a state that not only has scientific work come 

 to a standstill, but even our lives are in danger. 



One is very much tempted to discuss the 

 situation of scientific men in Russia, but it is 

 perhaps better simply to quote testimony from 

 impartial sources. There is, however, one 

 remark which must be made with regard to 

 Babkin's statement, namely, that Odessa is 

 very far removed from the limits of the 

 Federated Soviet Eepublic, being in the region 

 (Ukraina) dominated by the anti-bolshevic 

 forces. 



I happen to have before me a book pub- 

 lished recently by Gauthiers-Villars et Cie, 



