36 n. UNCERTAINTY OF SPECIES. 



individuals ; and tlie species thus resolved upon must 

 often be described from incomplete series of specimens. 

 It would be a worse alternative for science, not to name 

 and describe them at all. 



Unfortunately, the procedure which is thus unavoid- 

 able with respect to the plants of distant countries, or of 

 lands seldom visited by scientific collectors, has become 

 the routine practice with local describers also ; men whose 

 opportunities might be rendered greatly superior, if their 

 truth-seeking industry were anywise equal to their name- 

 seeking vanity. Among the so-called species of the Bri- 

 tish Islands, we find that some have been described and 

 named from single individuals, and many others from 

 specimens far too few and incomplete for certainty. In 

 short, it must be admitted by all truthful and logical bo- 

 tanists, that in a vast manj' instances the reputed species 

 of plants, which are enumerated and described in syste- 

 matic works, have not been subjected to any sufficiently 

 ample tests of their distinctness and permanence as true 

 species. Even the gTeater number of British species 

 have either not been thus tested at all, or have been 

 examined and tried very incompletely under this point of 

 view. They have been named and described, or they are 

 adopted and continued as species, much more usually be- 

 cause they are not known to be otherwise, than because 

 anybody has ever tested and proved them to be real spe- 

 cies ; that is to say, fully coming up to the definition of a 

 true species, and bearing the tests of a false species. 

 The few botanists who do occasionallj^ endeavour to 

 apply the before-mentioned tests to any proposed new 

 species, are usually denounced as rude and insulting, by 

 the botanist who (to use the language of the Reviewer 

 quoted on page 34) has " invented the species " or has 

 made " a technical description of the specimens." 



