January 9, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



71 



confronted with some of the most perplex- 

 ing of our difficulties. How far are we 

 justified in overturning that which is 

 fii-mlj^ established by usage in order to 

 introduce schemes of classification that 

 seem to lis better and more rational? 



Hoping that your patience has not been 

 exhaiisted by the references already made 

 to personal experiences, I beg j^our indul- 

 gence while I refer once more, for illustra- 

 tion, to my own work, Avhich is a mono- 

 graphic treatment of an order of crelenter- 

 ates. In attempting to discuss the genera 

 of a single family, the SertularidiB, it was 

 found that there were included in it about 

 twelve apparently well-established genera. 

 These had been carefully defined and the 

 classification seemed a logical and good 

 one. When, however, the great amount 

 of sertularian material accumulated dur- 

 ing the past twenty years by the Albatross 

 and other government agencies, together 

 with the results of recent work by our 

 cousins across the water, came to be worked 

 over, the fact became more and more ap- 

 parent that not a single one of these es- 

 tablished genera could hold, unless some 

 entirely unnatural and arbitrary charac- 

 ters were i;sed, such as would be em- 

 ployed in the construction of artificial 

 keys. Not a single one of these genera, as 

 defined, was exempt from almost ideal in- 

 tergradation with one or more other gen- 

 era. Here the investigator is confronted 

 with a dilemma with several horns, if the 

 bull be allowable, either one of which was 

 fraught with most uncomfortable conse- 

 quences. The folloAving courses were 

 open: 



1. To adopt an entirely artificial system, 

 for convenience only. 



2. To throw all of the old genera into 

 one, for the sake of scientific consistency. 



3. To make a new grouping,' involving 

 a new lot of genera. 



4. To use the old and well-established 



genera, pointing oiit the intergradations 

 and franlvly admitting their scientific in- 

 sufficiency. 



Considering these in order, we find that 

 the fii'st proposition, that is, to adopt an 

 entirely artificial system for convenience 

 only, would be eminently unscientific, a 

 backward step that should not have serious 

 consideration. 



To throw all the old genera into one 

 would be the course to which the strict 

 dictates of the scientific conscience would 

 impel the investigator. If one could set 

 aside every consideration save the letter of 

 the law, and be willing to be pilloried by 

 his colleagues, this would be the proper 

 course to pursue. As a matter of fact, 

 however, such a course would involve the 

 renaming of about nine tenths of the hun- 

 dreds of species involved, and throwing all 

 the knowledge so laboriously attained by 

 our predecessors and contemporaries into 

 pi, resulting in every worker in that group, 

 or every one that wanted to mention a 

 species, being forced to find out what the 

 thing would be called under the new sys- 

 tem, no matter how familiar he might be 

 with the group. Should any one have the 

 hardihood to precipitate such a disaster, he 

 would not only be pilloried and execrated, 

 but, I doubt not, would fail to secure a 

 single follower, and all of his work would 

 die with him and his name be anathema. 



The third course, that is to make a new 

 grouping under new generic names when 

 necessary, and old ones when possible, 

 would be an excellent solution were it not 

 for the fact that months of the hardest 

 study, with ample literature and material 

 hitherto unsurpassed in abundance has 

 resulted in the sad conclusion that no 

 grouping can be devised that will not be 

 open, to the original difficiilty, that of in- 

 tergrading forms in all directions. Noth- 

 ing would be gained, and much confusion 



