September 27, 1901.] 



SCIENCE. 



471 



us, then, proceed with the accumulation of 

 material, with the collection of specimens 

 which may illustrate each species at every 

 stage of development, in every part of its 

 range, in every environment in which it 

 occurs. In this matter we are much behind 

 zoologists. They often work with hundreds 

 or even thousands of specimens while we 

 try to draw like inferences from dozens. 

 An entomologist recently told me, quite as 

 a matter of course, that he had just com- 

 pleted a monographic examination of more 

 than fifteen hundred specimens represent- 

 ing a single species of orthopterous insect, 

 together with three or four of its varieties. 

 When may we expect that botanists will 

 take similar pains in the interpretation 

 of the limits and variations of a single 

 species ? 



While on this subject of collection I may 

 be permitted to emphasize an often neg- 

 lected obligation of the collector to the 

 monographer — that of reasonably full field 

 notes. I realize that this is a wearisome 

 subject, well known and thoroughly ap- 

 preciated by many conscientious botanists 

 and as persistently disregarded by others. 

 I am acquainted, for instance, with several 

 expert systematists, most scrupulous in all 

 other ways, who appear on this subject of 

 labels to have a curious mental defect. 

 They never seem to have grasped the art 

 of writing them, nor realized in this matter 

 any obligation whatever toward their col- 

 leagues. From one of them I recently re- 

 ceived some excellent specimens with no 

 data but ' White Mountains.' Repeatedly, 

 when working upon a particular species at 

 the Gray Herbarium, I have examined 

 dozens of specimens from many difierent 

 collectors in the vain hope of learning from 

 the field notes upon the labels such simple 

 facts as the color of the corolla, height of 

 the plant, or nature of the soil where it 

 grows. Here is another opportunity for 

 advance in which nearly every one con- 



nected with systematic botany can co- 

 operate. 



We have seen, then, that the first re- 

 quisite for a more thorough proving of 

 species is a much greater and more repre- 

 sentative accumulation of material and 

 data. Then, of course, will come the diflB- 

 cult task of interpreting this material and 

 especially of determining for general guid- 

 ance more definite standards of variation. 

 Regarding this latter possibility I have 

 heard some scepticism expressed ; but it 

 seems to ofier no greater diflBculty than 

 many other problems which have been 

 successfully settled in the natural sciences. 

 It must be admitted, of course, that while 

 our knowledge of particular species is de- 

 rived from a dozen, or in some instances 

 from only one or two, specimens, no satis- 

 factory standards of variation can be de- 

 vised or applied. But were we to work 

 with a hundred times this amount of 

 material, it is more than probable that the 

 degrees of natural intergradation could be 

 fairly approximated. It would at least 

 become evident which lines of specific de- 

 velopment had attained what may be called 

 a normal distinctness, a condition in which 

 intergrades would be so exceptional as to 

 suggest atavistic reversions, while, on the 

 other hand, many of our so-called species 

 would doubtless be found to be connected 

 by regular, normal and fairly numerous 

 natural intergrades, their lines of develop- 

 ment would still be in a state of anasto- 

 mosis, not having attained habitual dis- 

 tinctness. The interesting question would 

 then arise whether the intergradation were 

 geographically general or local, whether it 

 were morphologically concomitant or pro- 

 miscuous. 



To interpret these matters satisfactorilj'- 

 will require not only the vast accumulation 

 of material the need of which has just been 

 emphasized, but a cautious and judicial at- 

 titude of mind, great impartiality, and an 



