338 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIII. No. 1106 



tion. First there were vernacular names 

 in the different languages. Then vernacu- 

 lar names in Latin acquired prominence 

 because Latin early became the language 

 of the books. Later we have the develop- 

 ment of the idea of the genus with the cor- 

 responding application of the generic 

 name, the kinds or species being distin- 

 guished by descriptive phrases. And 

 finally Linnaeus introduced the use of the 

 trivial or, as it is now called, the specific 

 name. Thus each species is designated by 

 a binomial. You will readily see that 

 plant names become, as it were, units of 

 precision by which all branches of botany 

 are standardized. From this standpoint 

 taxonomy is fundamental because it fur- 

 nishes the standard units of comparison 

 and coordination, these units being not 

 merely the names but the ideas which 

 these names represent. 



Botanists not always have been suffi- 

 ciently impressed with the necessity of 

 basing results upon carefully prepared 

 standards. If a chemist wishes to deter- 

 mine acidity by titration he first prepares 

 standard solutions of acid and alkali ; or if 

 he wishes to determine the atomic weight 

 of zinc he first prepares pure zinc or zinc 

 salt as a basis from which to work. If a 

 surveyor wishes to cover a country by tri- 

 angulation he first measures with extreme 

 accuracy his base line. Results can not be 

 compared unless they are based upon an 

 accurate common standard. Suppose a 

 chemist wishes to determine the solubility 

 in water of sodium carbonate at different 

 temperatures and to compare his results 

 with those obtained by a chemist in another 

 country. Suppose he is well trained, accu- 

 rate in his methods, has balances weighing 

 to a small fraction of a milligram, deter- 

 mines the solubility of his glass vessels, and 

 the purity of his distilled water, and is able 

 to calculate results within small limits of 



probable error. Then finally suppose that 

 he bases all his careful work on a bag of 

 washing soda obtained at a corner grocery. 

 What would you think of him? Suppose 

 an American botanist wishes to repeat the 

 investigations made by an English botanist 

 upon the anatomy of the stem of the day 

 lily. Suppose that he is well trained, accu- 

 rate in his methods, has the finest of mi- 

 crotomes, has at his command the last word 

 on staining and methods of imbedding, 

 supports his record with magnificent 

 photomicrographs, and is a master of all 

 the technique required. Suppose he is not 

 acquainted with the day lily, but neverthe- 

 less trusts his untrained gardener to bring 

 for his investigation a plant which the lat- 

 ter thinks probably is a day lily. What 

 would you think of him ? I have attempted 

 tc illustrate my point by exaggerated ex- 

 amples. I wish, however, to emphasize the 

 statement that all comparative investiga- 

 tions upon plants depend for their useful- 

 ness upon accuracy in the identification of 

 the species compared. Even competent 

 and experienced botanists have sometimes 

 neglected to establish at the beginning of 

 an investigation this firm basis for work. 

 The less experienced man is sometimes in- 

 clined to assume, especially if he has had 

 limited training in taxonomy, that plants 

 in gardens, greenhouses and herbaria be- 

 long to the species indicated by the labels 

 they bear. Such faith is beautiful to be- 

 hold, but, alas and alack! the worker is 

 often a victim of misplaced confidence. 

 The investigator should first establish the 

 identity of the plant which he studies. If 

 he has not had sufficient training in syste- 

 matic botany to enable him to do this him- 

 self he should refer his specimen to a com- 

 petent taxonomist and preferably to a spe- 

 cialist in the group to which the plant 

 belongs. In comparing results based upon 

 definite species of plants there arises 



