44 



1906, publishing as new 55 species out of a total of 59, and that 

 of Small and Alexander, who recognize 96 species of Iris in the 

 southern States, of which 88 are accredited to one or the other 

 of the two authors. Now we have Suksdorf's contribution, which 

 scarcely equals these two cases in proportion of new species 

 but far exceeds them in mass. Asa Gray recognized six species 

 from North America in 1878; Howell knew two from the 

 Northwest in 1901; Piper had three from Washington in 

 1906; Wooton and Standley had none from New Mexico; Tide- 

 strom reported four from Utah and Nevada, and Jepson recog- 

 nized seven from California. Suksdorf has examined the same 

 material to which Jepson had access and reports ten from Wash- 

 ington, eleven from Oregon, six from Nevada, one from New 

 Mexico, and no less than 199 from California. Of his total bulk 

 of 233 species, no less than 198 are described as new! 



I do not intend to criticize Suksdorf. On the contrary, I be- 

 lieve that no taxonomist ever makes new species just to gratify 

 his personal vanity and that every new description represents 

 the author's sincere and considered opinion. Suksdorf says in 

 his introduction (my translation): "The richness of Amsinckia 

 surpassed all my expectations. My work will scarcely satisfy 

 any botanist; I am not satisfied with it myself, but believe that 

 it will lead to a better understanding of the genus. The great 

 number of new species does not speak well for my work and will 

 produce a lack of confidence. But in my opinion it could not be 

 handled otherwise." 



Fashions change in species-making as in everything else. 

 Suksdorf may or may not be justified in making so many species, 

 and only a specialist can affirm one view or the other and then 

 only after long and patient study. The one important principle 

 which appears from such studies as Suksdorf's is this, that no 

 one has as yet discovered any rule by which the scope of a spe- 

 cies maybe measured or determined. The taxonomist can catalog 

 the morphological characters of a group, the ecologist can study 

 the relation of these characters to environment, and the genet- 

 icist can count chromosomes and determine the course of evo- 

 lution within the group, but none of them can finally decide an 

 the scope of a species, either in time, as measured by its evolu- 

 tion, or in structure, as measured by its morphology. We are all 

 governed primarily by usage in taxonomy. We accept the state- 



