November 28, 1902. J 



SCIENCE. 



869 



ments of research to lay hold of the facts and 

 arrange them in something like rational order. 

 J. E. Collins, 

 Secretary. 



DISCOSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 

 A QUESTION IN TERMINOLOGY. 



In replying to Professor Campbell's earnest 

 request to explain a problem in terminology,* 

 I feel as though an apology were necessary 

 for taking space in Science to state one of the 

 elementarj' principles of terminology adopted 

 by recent writers on the botanical system. Had 

 Professor Campbell evidenced as much famil- 

 iarity with the development of the botanical 

 system as followed in continental Europe and 

 America, as with the stereotyped text-book 

 classiiications of non-systematic botanists, he 

 would not have credited me with any new 

 proposition in my criticism of his text-book, 

 or have spoken of the system I have attempted 

 to follow as in any sense ' his system.' The 

 criticism offered was purely a matter of usage 

 or form, and has nothing whatever to do with 

 our conceptions of how this or that group shall 

 be divided, or whether orders or any other 

 categories of classification are all of equal 

 value — another equally elementary problem 

 that would seem to require no answer here. 



Modern classification does not commence 

 with the universe and divide it into kingdoms 

 and subkingdoms on the old plan of monarch- 

 ical and special creation. This has passed 

 from the horizon like Eafinesque's attempts to 

 reduce the forms of thunder and lightning 



* Science, II. 16. 705, 31 0. 1902. Had my 

 original criticism (Torreya, 2: 108-111) of Pro- 

 fessor Campbell's irregularities in terminology 

 extended to the ferns, I could have mentioned 

 various other inconsistencies; e. g.. Order Ophio- 

 glossaceff, Order Filices, Order LycopodmetE, 

 Class EquisetaZes, etc. The ferns are placed, in 

 Class Filicales at one point (p. 246) and as 

 Filicinew at another (p. 265), where they are 

 grouped into orders. We also have the 'Order 

 Isoetacew' (p. 266) marshaled with other euspor- 

 angiates under the Class Filicales, and again 

 appearing as 'The Isoetinew,' 'a distinct order,' 

 next to the ' Ord. III. Selaginellineoe ' of the Class 

 Lycopodiales. (The italics of course are mine.) 



to genera and species. In accordance with 

 prevailing evolutionary conceptions, modern 

 classiiication does commence with the indi- 

 vidual and attempts to show its relationship 

 to other created things. In this view a 

 species" is a group of related individuals, and a 

 genus is a group of related species. As we 

 reach the higher category, tribe, we have re- 

 served a special termination for the sake of 

 convenience and uniformity, deriving the 

 tribal name from a characteristic genus of the 

 tribe adding the termination E/E. In a similar 

 way the family is characterized by the termin- 

 ation ACE/E likewise added to a generic name. 

 This time-honored family term.ination in plant 

 classification was long abused and muddled 

 by the English school by speaking of families 

 as ' natural orders ' of plants, and this practice 

 lingers still among some of the old school in 

 America. So far the recent usage of systematic 

 botany practically coincides with that long 

 in use; in order, however, to coordinate botan- 

 ical classification more nearly with that long 

 followed in zoology, and to distinguish prop- 

 erly the order from the family, Lindley's 

 termination for the 'alliance' {collars of Ben- 

 tham and Hooker), -ales, has been adopted to 

 distinguish the next higher category above 

 the family. A group of related families is, 

 therefore, properly an order and is distin- 

 guished by the termination -ales. This modern 

 system proposed at Berlin, but not always con- 

 sistently followed even there, calls for rigid 

 adherence to the use of these terminations 

 each for its special category in classifica- 

 tion and for that alone. The terminations 

 then indicate the rank of the group — a per- 

 fectly rational and eminently practical sys- 

 tem. This was a minor part of my original 

 criticism to which Professor Campbell has 

 taken exception. He changed a name which 

 had been duly proposed as a class — i. e., a 

 group of related orders which in this case 

 (Anthocerotes) happens to contain a single 

 order and a single family — and used the form 

 'Glass Anthocerotales.' 



To apply the modern system to the 

 pteridophytes, I should say that, from the 

 starting point of the typical ferns (Family 

 PolypodiaccEe), the related families (Cyathe- 



