66 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XVII. No. 419 



that a difference that is so elusive that it 

 cannot be graphically described is not a 

 proper basis for even a new subspecies. 



The question here arises: Is there any 

 legitimate limit to the refinement of de- 

 scription and niceties of distinctions be- 

 tween species or subspecies? There are 

 many that hold that any difference what- 

 ever is sufficient basis for a specific de- 

 scription so long as there is no intergrada- 

 tion with other forms. Now it is evident 

 that differences may be so small that inter- 

 gradations are practically, although not 

 theoretically, impossible. The keen eye 

 of the expert systematist becomes almost 

 microscopic in its function and sees dif- 

 ferences that appear perfectly evident to 

 the observer, but that are really intangible 

 to the general zoologist, to say nothing of 

 the scientific public at large. Should each 

 of these microscopic differences be digni- 

 fied with a separate name? If so, can 

 we wonder that the non-systematic brother 

 becomes thoroughly disgusted with our dis- 

 cussions of the zoological 'filioque' and 

 consigns us all to quick extinction or a 

 lurid future of logarithms? 



It is to be hoped that the future will 

 disclose some method of preserving scien- 

 tific exactness, and at the same time ob- 

 literating the excessive pedantry that at 

 present seems to be the main objective 

 with certain systematists. And there is 

 good biological ground for this hope in the 

 law enunciated by our lamented Cope as 

 the 'law of the unspecialized. ' This, he 

 says, 'describes the fact that the highly 

 developed or specialized types of one geo- 

 logic period have not been the parents of 

 the t3'pes of succeeding periods, but that 

 the descent has been derived from the less 

 specialized of preceding ages.' There is 

 no doubt that the extremists have their 

 time and their uses, but they are not likely 

 to be followed in their extreme positions 

 by their successors of coming generations. 



It may be confidently predicted that the 

 future will disclose a safe mean between 

 the lax methods of many of the older zool- 

 ogists and the indefensible hair-splitting 

 of the extremists among the so-called ad- 

 vanced systematists of to-day. 



In the estimation of the general scien- 

 tific public the most grievous of our sins 

 is the making of synonyms, and there is 

 no question that we have much to answer 

 for in that direction. There are few, how- 

 ever, that are in a position to realize the 

 difficulties, amounting almost to impossi- 

 bilities, that confront even the most con- 

 scientious worker. He has in hand a form 

 that he cannot place in any known species, 

 althoiTgh he would be saved a deal of 

 trouble if he could. He must call this 

 troublesome, animal something. He can- 

 not call it by an old name and so, perforce, 

 he must find a new one for it. It belongs 

 to an old and weU-established genus to 

 which hundreds of species have, in the 

 course of more than a centiiry, been re- 

 ferred. Every descriptive term that can 

 possibly be made to apply to such an ani- 

 mal has long ago been used. Though the 

 worker may live in some great library 

 center, such as Boston or Washington, it 

 is impossible for him to have access to aU 

 of the literature pertaining to even a lim- 

 ited group. Though he spend months in 

 looking through dealers' lists and cata- 

 logues, he is bound to miss a number of 

 papers any one of which may contain 

 matter vital to his purpose. Having ex- 

 hausted every available source of informa- 

 tion, he at last ventures to decide on a 

 name which seems to him to be apt, and 

 not preoccupied. The more experienced 

 he is as a systematist the less confidence 

 he has that his name will stand, nor is he 

 greatly surprised to be reminded by some 

 loving friend that that name was used 

 twenty years ago in a paper published in 



