46 



biological work, the morphological and the physiological, so that 

 the separation of taxonomy which really belongs in the first divi- 

 sion is rather artificial. The separation however is necessary for 

 many reasons, among which are the fact that the temper of mind 

 and the methods of the workers in the two divisions are quite 

 different. 



It is perhaps the tendency of the time, at least in many 

 quarters, to underestimate the value of taxonomic research and 

 this is to be regretted since in classification we have the founda- 

 tions of other branches of work. Entirely aside from the philo- 

 sophical value of a well ordered classification, it is an absolute 

 necessity for a starting point of morphology and physiology to 

 have the different species of plants recorded in recognizable form, 

 and, in consequence, to have a classification. It would undoubt- 

 edly be a great advantage could organisms be classified as are 

 chemical compounds or could they be located as[the astronomers 

 locate the stars and in the same definite and precise manner. 

 Such is hardly possible when we reflect that the question of the 

 identity of an organism must, even under favorable conditions, be 

 somewhat a matter of opinion as well as of demonstrated fact. 

 Despite such limitations of taxonomy, in most of the really 

 important questions opinion is fairly universal, so that our classi- 

 fication is not developed simply at the whim of any one investi- 

 gator. Taxonomy, however, as soon as it is considered an end 

 in itself sinks at once to the level of mere cataloguing or, worse 

 still, loses itself in the mazes of nomenclatorial controversy. It 

 must be considered in its relation to the problems of plant dis- 

 tribution, of the evolution of new forms, of its philosophical 

 intent, if it is to retain its vitality. 



I have spoken of artificial classifications in connection with the 

 work of earlier botanists. How then does the natural classifica- 

 tion as understood to-day differ? Primarily, it differs in the 

 admission of genetic relationship of forms, a thing not conceived 

 of by older writers. A natural classification implies higher and 

 lower forms, connected by intermediate ones in all stages of dif- 

 ferentiation. However, it does not imply that all these forms 

 exist to-day, nor does it imply that they developed in a single 



