480 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XII. No. 300. 



of genera which they did Bot discover. 

 Such a step need not, however, compel us 

 to return to the Middle Ages or to Class- 

 ical Antiquity ; Tournefort's ' Institutiones ' 

 published at the appropriate date 1700 was 

 an important integration of previous knowl- 

 edge, and has long been considered the 

 beginning of modern botanical literature ; 

 beyond this our taxonomy scarcely needs 

 go to. Commencing with the ' Father of 

 Genera' the selection of the first species 

 as the type would result in no complica- 

 tions by reason of the Linnsean arrange- 

 ment of species, and it may be confidently 

 expected that the uniform application of 

 such a rule would necessitate far fewer 

 changes than would the method of elimi- 

 nation, whereby the doubtful or unidenti- 

 fiable species are often the only residue on 

 which time-honored names could be main- 

 tained. 



To many who have desired to minimize 

 as far as possible the bibliographic labor 

 which is so great a burden to systematic 

 botany, the adoption of such a change will 

 be a matter of regret, but this argument 

 cannot be used by the authors of the ' Check 

 List ' and other publications prepared on 

 the basis of the Rochester Rules, since these 

 have cheerfully assumed the burdens and 

 multiplied the changes which a closer ad- 

 herence to the binomial system would have 

 avoided. And yet the task is quite finite, 

 especially since we should be under no obli- 

 gation to attempt the re-identification of the 

 pre-Linnsean species, but may infer most of 

 them with historical warrant from the cita- 

 tions of ' Species Plantarum ' and subsequent 

 binomial literature. 



Choice lies thus between the restriction 

 of taxonomic recognition to genera provided 

 with a binomial species in 'Species Plantarum' 

 or some subsequent work, or the admission 

 of the genera of Tournefort and his succes- 

 sors whenever referable to an identifiable 

 species, whether binomial or not. While it 



is true that these alternatives could be com- 

 bined or modified in a variety of ways, such 

 compromises could result only in exceptions 

 and complications which experience has 

 shown to be held in small favor by those 

 who do not oppose change merely from 

 motives of inertia. 



A justification for a laissez faire policy in 

 nomenclature is often based on the allega- 

 tion that since the species and other cate- 

 gories of classification cannot be accurately 

 defined and equalized there is no possibil- 

 ity of the attainment of either uniformity 

 or stability in the use of names. "Whatever 

 may have been the justice or the logical 

 propriety of this destructive criticism as ap- 

 plied to a taxonomic system based on the 

 method of concepts, it is purely specious 

 and ineffective with reference to the method 

 of types. The species is a group of indi- 

 viduals, the genus a group of species, the 

 family a group of genera, and these terms 

 are quite as definite and comprehensible 

 as other collective nouns. Botanists may 

 never agree on the number of species, or 

 on the number of groups of species which 

 should be recognized as genera, but it is en- 

 tirely possible for them to agree on the 

 names as far as they agree on the groups, 

 not by deferring to arbitrary authority, but 

 by adherence to a rational and uniform 

 course of procedure. As long as a genus is 

 viewed as a concept, it belongs, obviously, 

 where it fits best, and it is quite logical to 

 reject it if no correspondence in nature be 

 found, or to move it along to new series of 

 species, where the description is more ap- 

 plicable than to those for which it was 

 drawn. The conceptual theory of taxon- 

 omy comported entirely with the doctrine 

 of special creation, but it is not adapted to 

 the purposes of phylogenetic classification 

 as an integration of the results of the study 

 of the evolution of organic types, and its 

 continued use is now unscientific as well as 

 unpractical. As the genus does not consist 



