n. INEQUALITY OF SPECIES. 45 



which hotanists seem all agreed to recognize as true 

 species, distinct from all else, and indivisible in them- 

 selves, — apparently having the same limits in nature as 

 in books. 



But further, there are many other species which are 

 regarded in the same light by some botanists, although 

 by other botanists certain sub-species or quasi-species 

 are split off (so to write) from them. Thus, the Dryas 

 octopetala might have been placed above among the 

 single indivisible species, such as Parnassia palustris and 

 Trientalis europcBa, had not the very doubtful quasi- 

 species Dryas deiiressa, as already mentioned, been split 

 off from it by Mr. Babington. But as this petty chip 

 from the old species had no diagnostic characters of any 

 seeming value assigned to it, and was apparently a mere 

 casual variety, since unsuccesfully sought by Mr. An- 

 drews in the only spot indicated for it, — we really ought 

 not here to say that the well-known and widely- diffused 

 Dryas octopetala has been divided by botanists into two 

 species. The more appropriate explanation would be, 

 that a spurious book-species has been incorrectly carved 

 from the natural species by one botanist, prone to " de- 

 scribe specimens." Thus also, various other British spe- 

 cies have been more or less unequally subdivided, by the 

 severance of doubtful book-species from them. For ex- 

 ample, Ulex Gallii (Planchon), Helianthemuvi Breweri 

 (Planchon), Melampyrum montanum (Johnston), Geranium 

 purpureum (Forster), Herniaria ciliata (Babington), Ceras- 

 tiiim atrovircns (Babington), Cerastium pedunculatum (Ba- 

 bington), Teucriwm , scordioides (Schreber), Epilohium 

 hrachycarpum (Leighton), Rihes petramm (Smith), Ribes 

 spicatum (Robson), with various others, may be in this 

 position of spurious species ; such as are not easily 

 distinguished, and probably not distinct, from the more 



