650 
make the results of such studies available 
to the general student, without at the same 
time compelling him to become a specialist 
himself (at least for the time being), at the 
cost of time and mental strain that can be 
more profitably otherwise employed. Ex- 
cessive, and especially premature speciali- 
zation, preceding instead of succeeding the 
establishment of a broad basis of general 
knowledge, is recognized as one of the most 
serious evils of our present system of scien- 
tific training and investigation. The spec- 
ialist is becoming less and less capable of 
fruitfully correlating his results with the 
general facts and principles of the cognate 
branches of science, and the overweening 
self-esteem born of narrow training and 
ignorance of wider fields, is too often ap- 
parent both in writings and personal inter- 
course. At the same time, the coining of 
unnecessary new terms and names, more 
especially indulged in by this class of in- 
vestigators, renders even their good work 
difficultly available to students outside of 
their specialties. Among the most aggra- 
vated and aggravating difficulties so im- 
posed is. the introduction of new generic 
names upon the basis of discrimina alleged 
to be cogently ‘generic’; a tendency 
fostered by the ambition to have one’s 
name forever associated with such new 
names. 
Now if, as evolutionists must hold, gen- 
era, and orders as well, are essentially 
group arrangements made by man for the 
purpose of subsuming related forms under 
a general point of view for more ready and 
fruitful study, it would seem that the more 
comprehensive such points of view can be 
made, the better the main purpose will be 
subserved. So far from being closely limited, 
the definition of the genus should be as 
wide as possible; so that for the purposes of 
the general student, its members would be 
called by the most comprehensive name 
compatible with the objects of general 
SCIENCE. 
[N.S. Vou. X. No. 253. 
study.* The specialist, on the other hand, 
may make use of the wider designation so 
far only as it may be useful for his discus- 
sion, while employing for the minor sub- 
divisions required by his new points of 
view, such ‘subgeneric’ or ‘ sectional’ des- 
ignations as have heretofore stood for ill- 
defined genera. 
It seems to the writer that the general- 
ized point of view could thus be kept within 
convenient reach of the general student, 
while the subgeneric designations would 
afford the specialist ample facilities for dis- 
cussion with his fellow-workers. Anyone 
desiring to specialize in a particular line 
would readily familiarize himself with the 
specialist’s subgeneric or sectional terms. 
It would seem that in this way, the inter- 
ests of both classes of students, as well as 
of science at large, would be effectually 
safeguarded and fostered, and the partici- 
pation of a wider constituency in science 
study essentially facilitated. 
E. W. Hinearp. 
THE CARD INDEX OF EXPERIMENT STATION 
PUBLICATIONS. 
In view of the recent discussions regard- 
ing card indexes of scientific literature 
many of the readers of ScrENcE may be in- 
* A striking example of the opposite principle ap- 
pears in Bulletin 18 of the Division of Agrostology, 
‘Synopsis of the genus Sitanion.’ In the introduc- 
tion, Scribner, in giving the characters upon which 
the genus is based as distinct from Elymus, remarks 
that they ‘justify the separation of these species as 
a distinct genus,’ although “‘to be sure there are 
species so closely connecting Elymus with Sitanion 
that it is difficult to say to which genus they ought 
to be referred.’’? These intermediate forms ‘‘indi- 
cate their close relationship, but this fact does not 
afford sufficient reason for uniting them. * * *?7 
Here it is evident that the view held is that genera 
should be asclosely limited as possible ; regardless of 
the fact that the obvious close resemblance of these 
plants will put every student, not a specialist, to the 
trouble of eliminating all the species of the well- 
known genus E/ymus before considering the un- 
familiar Sitanion ; which as a subgenus of the former 
would have just the standing its slight structural 
differences seem to justify. 
