48 n. INEQUALITY OF SPECIES. 



tion of the term. And that all such natural species 

 ought to be held equals and equivalents of each other. 

 Eight enough. But the difficulty arises from our igno- 

 rance as to which are truly natural sj)ecies ; and the con- 

 sequent necessity of treating book-species in their stead. 

 Unfortunately, botanists are very far from agreed as to 

 what are or ought to be book-species. One botanist will 

 still regard Ranuncidus aquatilis as a single and indivi- 

 sible species ; a second botanist divides it into three 

 species ; a third botanist can find half a dozen species in 

 it ; a fourth botanist will double that modest number ; 

 and some will perhaps even exceed the full dozen species. 

 Here, unless a whole is only equal to any of its i^arts or 

 fragments, such species cannot be equal among them- 

 selves. There is no equality between the following unit 

 and any of its fractions, — 1 ^ -^ y 2 • Or, to put the mat- 

 ter under another aspect, is the Rubus fruticosus a species 

 when it includes only the R. discolor of the present day ? 

 And is it equally a species, or an equal species, when it 

 includes forty or fifty other species or subspecies of the 

 present day ? And can it; in either application of the 

 name, be counted one and co-equal with the species 

 Rubus Idceus or Rubus saxatilis ? The term super-species 

 may not be much admired, but it will suffice for the mo- 

 ment in contrast against that of sub-species ; a term now 

 adopted by various botanical authorities, as one that is 

 practically convenient, although not consistent with the 

 strict definition of the non- compound term species. 

 Three grades of species may now be shown thus : — 



1. K. fruticosus, — a super-species, or aggregate. 



2. E. saxatilis, — a true species, or indivisible unit. 



3. E. discolor, — a sub-species, or segregate. 



It is made too evident in the j)receding examples, that 

 the term species has an application in practice quite as 



