June 26, 1914] 



SCIENCE 



926 



Let me suggest that there are also two 

 kinds of species, those that exist more or 

 less well defined in nature and those that 

 have only an academic standing. Into 

 which category the different ones wiU. ulti- 

 mately fall is not in the power of any one 

 mind to settle, for we recognize the truth as 

 expressed by Dr. Gray when he said : 



Species . . . are not facts or tMngs, but judg- 

 ments, and of course fallible judgments; how fal- 

 lible the working naturalist knows and feels more 

 than any one else. 



We often hear of "critical species" and 

 arguments are multiplied to defend their 

 retention in literature. Surely it is true 

 that some of them are valid and stronger 

 even when held on avowedly technical 

 characters than some of the supposedly evi- 

 dent ones that have long been accepted. 

 Nevertheless, one can not help suspecting 

 that the condition of many of these is so 

 "critical" that they can not long survive 

 the untoward conditions that a. general 

 upheaval in systematic botany will super- 

 induce. 



3. Some of the synonyms are the direct 

 result of mistakes other than that of draw- 

 ing overfine distinctions. To enumerate 

 the countless causes for these errors is 

 neither desirable nor possible. For each 

 there is always an explanation, not neces- 

 sarily an excuse. As already stated, error 

 is inseparable from activity. Legislation 

 that would limit publication to those hav- 

 ing experience and who are working in a 

 proper environment would be desirable but 

 for two things: (a) It would cut ofE the 

 future supply of systematists and (&) it is 

 impossible of enforcement. Since prohibi- 

 tion is scarcely possible and surely not 

 desirable, regulation might be attempted. 

 Seriously, why should any one publish a 

 species in a genus in which the known in- 

 digenous ones are not all clear to him, un- 

 less it be in a genus separable into strongly 



marked sections. In that case one might 

 work with some assurance of certainty if 

 all the species in the section were known. 



4. It sometimes proves disastrous to as- 

 sume, as is often done, an inherent im- 

 probability that the same species will not 

 be found in districts widely separated 

 geographically. Environmental factors 

 must be reckoned with and these have a 

 trick of repeating themselves in far distant 

 and most unexpected places. Mistakes 

 would be enormously reduced if every one 

 was expected to definitely locate the pro- 

 posed species in the genus, keying out the 

 species if necessary, or only those of the 

 section should its sectional relationship be 

 apparent. 



It is one thing to describe a plant and 

 say (as I and others have done) "appar- 

 ently not very near any of the hitherto 

 known species." It is quite another to so 

 describe it that it shall be properly con- 

 trasted with its nearest ally and its setting 

 in the genus made evident. 



It is always hazardous to publish in a 

 large genus unless the examination of its 

 content amounts practically to a tentative 

 monograph. Take a genus at random, 

 Arnica for instance, and even a superficial 

 examination of the material in any large 

 herbarium will reveal a number of good 

 species each of which has been character- 

 ized by several during the last two decades, 

 apparently because each felt free to assume, 

 for instance, that Colorado and Washington 

 were, for phytographical purposes, on 

 different planets. 



5. Another source of error lies in our 

 adherence to different codes or to no codes 

 at all. International law and comity are 

 swept aside. Lawlessness always did mean 

 anarchy in political and social life, and it 

 has brought the same result in taxonomic 

 nomenclature. The moral is not hard to 

 find. 



