June 18, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



901 



as " poor relations " by those wlio compla- 

 cently believe their own studies to be con- 

 cerned witli real biology, that this sort of a 

 " tu quoque " is now and then to be expected. 

 But such " class consciousness " should be laid 

 aside, and the question candidly considered 

 whether the entire biological profession, or in- 

 deed society at large, does not have a proprie- 

 tary interest in taxonomic names. A very little 

 reflection will show that this is true. The case 

 is not at all dissimilar to that of a coal or 

 railway strike in which the rights of the pub- 

 lic — the chief sufferers — are entirely ignored 

 by the disputants. And we may say with 

 equal justice that the chief sufferers from an 

 unstable system of nomenclature are not the 

 taxonomists — whether " splitters " or " lump- 

 ers " — but that host of unfortunates who are 

 under the constant necessity of using these 

 names, while having no share in their creation 

 or transmutation. 



Eeturning to the subject of generic names, 

 it must not be supposed that the only evil re- 

 sulting from this progressive " splitting " is 

 the mere inconvenience of our having to learn 

 new names as fast as the old ones are dis- 

 placed by accredited authorities. This, in- 

 deed, is bad enough, but there is an even more 

 harmful result which, I think, deserves further 

 emphasis. I have spoken above of generic 

 names as verbal clues to the nearer hinships 

 hetiveen species. These clues lose their value 

 in proportion as genera are made less and less 

 inclusive. Let me illustrate. We have, on 

 the coast of southern California, three com- 

 mon species of " ice-plant," which differ from 

 one another strikingly in structure, appear- 

 ance and habits of growth. When these three 

 species of Mesemhryanthemum have been as- 

 signed (as some day they will!) to the sepa- 

 rate genera Smithia, Johnsonia and Macarthy- 

 ana, those of us who are not systematic botan- 

 ists may no longer think to look for the 

 fundamental resemblances among these plants 

 which appear to have so little in common. 

 Again, I recently learned that a certain little 

 straggling plant, with a yellow flower, which 

 abounds along the beaches at La Jolla, is in 



reality an CEnothera! Who wiU say that I 

 added nothing to my knowledge when I affili- 

 ated this little plant with that well-known 

 genus ? But how many such clues to relation- 

 ship will be left when the genus-splitter has 

 finished his work? 



The question raises itseK whether the detec- 

 tion of resemblances in nature is not as im- 

 portant as the detection of differences. Is it 

 not largely this unity in variety — or variety 

 in unity — which fascinates the true nature- 

 lover, be he an amateur collector, a beginning 

 student or a professional biologist? And it 

 can hardly be denied that the extent of our 

 recognition of such unity is greatly influenced 

 by the names which we flnd applied to things. 



Fortunately, I am able to cite, in support 

 of my present contention, the words of a high 

 authority in the field of systematic zoology. 

 W. H. Osgood,^ in justifying his extensive 

 use of subgenera, writes that those who object 

 to this procedure " must necessarily recognize 

 more and more groups as genera until the dis- 

 tinction between the genus and the species 

 becomes so slight as to be of little taxonomic 

 value, while at the same time the gap between 

 the genus and the group of next higher rank 

 is correspondingly increased." Such a tend- 

 ency, he says, " actually operates to reduce 

 the number of categories of classification be- 

 tween the subfamily and the species, and this 

 results, not in an improved and more discrimi- 

 nating system of classification, but one with 

 fewer groups and fewer possibilities for the 

 indication of relationships." Again : 



The use of subgenera provides a means of ad- 

 justing the differences usually existing between 

 the general zoologist and the specialist. The gen- 

 eric name answers all the purposes of the general 

 zoologist while the specialist may use as many sub- 

 genera as he desires and meet all the requirements 

 of discriminating elassification. This also operates 

 to conciliate the amateur, whose outcries against 

 the continual changing of names by specialists will 

 thereby be lessened. Although these protests are 



1 ' ' Eavision of the Mice of the American Genus 

 Peromyscus," V. S. Department of Agriculture, 

 North American Fauna, No. 28, 1909 (citations 

 from page 25). 



