I9I5.] IN SYSTEMATIC BOTANY. 63 



give us much pride. Ability of a high order continues to express 

 itself in this field. 



We have noted the tendency to specialize. Persons become ex- 

 pert in certain detached groups of plants. We become most skillful 

 in detecting the differences that may distinguish species, but it may 

 be doubted whether we are equally skillful in bringing together the 

 agreements that may formulate genera. We seem now to be dis- 

 covering separateness. It does not follow that one who has nice 

 judgment on species necessarily has equal authority on genera. The 

 tendency to break up our old groups into many genera, is apparently 

 the result of the application of the species-habit. It is a great 

 question whether the method of separation is the proper one to 

 apply equally in these two kinds of cases. 



Perhaps we cannot hope for much result in the standardizing 

 of the species-conception by our methods of herbarium work, but it 

 ought not to be difficult to arrive at some kind of an agreement on 

 genera. We may well consider the advisabihty of being progressive 

 in searching out the ultimate specific units — so far as there are 

 such units — at the same time that we hold a conservative attitude on 

 genera, for we can scarcely assume that there are ultimate generic 

 lines. Thereby we might make a truthful presentation of the vege- 

 table kingdom at the same time that we avoid vast changes in 

 nomenclature. 



A Situation as to the Living Material. 

 With the needful specialization of the systematic work, we find 

 ourselves with very unequal treatment in the different groups. This 

 inequality is perhaps the most outstanding characteristic of our 

 present phytographical publication. It is impossible at present to 

 compile a general work with any clear approach to uniformity of 

 handhng in the different genera and families. This is due in part 

 to the fact that some of the groups have been recently worked over 

 whereas others still retain a traditional treatment. Nor is it desir- 

 able that there shall be rigid codification on genera, for we need the 

 judgment of different workers and this necessarily leads to non- 

 uniformity; the specialist is entitled to his method; and yet the in- 

 equalities in interpretation appear to be so great in many cases as to 

 amount to inharmony and even to confusion. 



