Januaey 9, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



65 



every zoologist who does systematic work 

 starts out with the idea that there is noth- 

 ing else quite so desirable and altogether 

 ecstatic as the discovery and naming of 

 new species; and this feeling results, it 

 must be confessed, in numerous synonyms 

 and great confusion. That this is an al- 

 most inevitable phase in the career of the 

 ambitious systematist must be frankly ac- 

 knowledged, and must be endured with as 

 much philosophy as possible, the prospect 

 being cheered by the reflection that the 

 phase is exceedingly evanescent, and is of 

 inconsiderable duration as compared with 

 the whole career of the systematist. I 

 know that I shall be backed by every worker 

 of experience when I assert that any sj's- 

 tematist who has gotten beyond the callow 

 period would very much prefer to be able 

 to place a given form in a previously de- 

 scribed species than to be forced to de- 

 scribe it as new. 



Besides, those of us who are sufficiently 

 unregenerate can take great comfort in 

 the thought that no one more eagerly em- 

 braces the chance to describe a new species 

 than the morphologist who thinks he has 

 discovered a noveltj-, and he it is who most 

 often dodges the necessity of careful re- 

 search along bibliographical lines, and at 

 the same time artlessly evades all proper 

 r.esponsibilitj' for his crimes by the for- 

 mula: 'If this interesting form proves to 

 be new, I propose for it the following 

 name. ' 



The naive innocence of some of our em- 

 bryo naturalists is sometimes quite refresh- 

 ing. For instance, a year or so ago a 

 young and enthusiastic student in a west- 

 ern state wrote me that he thought he had 

 a new species of a group in which I am 

 interested, and a.sked me to kindly send 

 him the literature on that group. Not find- 

 ing me able to see my way clear to accom- 

 modate him, he proceeded to describe the 

 supposed new species, and gave it a name. 



The result proved that the name was pre- 

 occupied and that the species was only 

 a somewhat common color variety of a 

 well-known form. 



We have all of us made ridiculous mis- 

 takes, however, and no systematist of any 

 experience could afford to throw the first 

 stone were the biblical condition enforced. 

 We should be cautious, however, and not 

 leave too many cracks in our harness to 

 be discovered by our friends the enemy. 

 There are certain things that we ought to 

 stop doing, and stop at once. One of the 

 worst sins of the systematist is inadequate 

 description of species. The scientific 

 world has a right to demand good clear de- 

 scriptions, and is not slow to express its 

 contempt for any remissness in this direc- 

 tion. As an example of this particular 

 sin I would cite an instance given by an 

 entomological friend, which I quote ver- 

 batim : 



"The variety harrisii of Cicindela sex- 

 guttata is described thus: It differs from 

 typical sexguttata in the color, which is 

 olivaceous green, and in living at a con- 

 siderable elevation."* It is not often that 

 the variety maker is so refreshingly frank 

 as this. 



Another illustration is furnished by one 

 of our energetic and intrepid young orni- 

 thologists, who evidently believes that each 

 geographical locality 'ought to yield a tri- 

 nomial for each bird inhabitant. He says : 



"The differences characterizing this new 

 form are not such as may be graphically 

 described, but they are, nevertheless, quite 

 apparent on comparison of specimens." 



It appears from the context that this 

 subspecies is based on a single specimen, 

 but, coming from a different region, like 

 the 'living at a somewhat higher altitude' 

 of the insect referred to above, seems to 

 be in reality, if not professedly, a zoolog- 

 ical character. It seems to your speaker 



* The italics are mine. 



