50 II. INEQUAIJTY OF SPECIES. 



distribution of species cannot be ascertained while their 

 specific names mean one thing here and another there. 

 Records of localities made under the aggregate name can- 

 not be certainly assigned to the segregate species. An 

 example or two of these difficulties may be serviceable 

 in illustration. 



In the admirably commenced Flora Indica, by Drs. 

 Hooker and Thomson, pages 109 — 112, the Authors give 

 " a list of 222 British plants which extend into India." 

 Among these j)lants are enumerated the following s])e- 

 cies :— Ranunculus aquatilis, Barbarea vulgaris, Carda- 

 mine hirsuta, Melllotus ojjicinalis, Ruhus frutlcosus, Ery- 

 tkrcea Centaurium, Callitriche aquatica, Potamogeton 

 nutans, Eleocharls palustris, and Carex flava. These are 

 Linnean species ; and down to the present time they 

 have been held single species by a gradually decreasing 

 number of botanists. But various sub-si>ecies or segre- 

 gates have been as gradually' carved from them by other 

 botanists ; and some of these sub-species (once so 

 deemed) may fairlj'^ now be designated as currently ad- 

 mitted true species. Are the typical forms of these Lin- 

 nean species found in India ? Are all the sub-species 

 found there ? If not all, which of the sub-species are so 

 found ? Or, are the Indian plants really other sub- 

 species, different from those of Europe ? The names 

 vised by Drs. Hooker and Thomson do not enable us to 

 give an answer to these queries. But comparisons be- 

 tween the European and Indian botanies, in the estima- 

 tion of tliose botanists who regard the above names as 

 applicable to aggregate species, cannot be satisfactorily 

 made before those questions have been answered. 



Such questions ai'e of course by no means special 

 or peculiar to Indian botany. They might equally be 

 asked with reference to various of those European spe- 



