268 Mr Bernard, On the Unit of Classification 



On the Unit of Classification for Systematic Biology. By 

 Henry M. Bernard, M.A. 



{Communicated by Mr A. E. Shipley.) 

 [Read 11 November 1901.] 



My object in appearing here to-day is not merely to awaken 

 an interest in the purely abstract problem of ideal classification, 

 but to awaken an interest which will, I hope, sooner or later result 

 in a practical reform of method. So far as I can see, zoologists are 

 face to face with an ever increasingly serious practical difficulty. 

 This difficulty is at present felt in very varying degrees, which 

 depend upon the stability of the forms on which we are engaged. 

 Those working with constant forms know nothing about it, whereas 

 in my own case it actually brought my work on the stony Corals 

 to a standstill. To state very briefly the difficulty as it affects 

 my own work. ' Species ' as distinct genetic groups, or indeed as 

 anything even approaching distinct genetic groups, are not dis- 

 coverable. However striking the form -differences within a genus 

 may be, their variations are so great and so numerous and inter- 

 graded that no trustworthy conclusion can be arrived at as to 

 their value for the purposes of genetic classification, at least until 

 we have a far wider survey of forms than any at our disposal 

 to-day. And yet we have no other formula for our attempts at 

 classification than that supplied by the binominal species name of 

 Linnaeus, which compels us either to group the specimens into 

 ' species ' or to leave them alone. 



My experience during the past year, during which I have 

 spent a great deal of time in working at this problem, this paper 

 being about the fifteenth attempt I have made to clarify the 

 subject, while at the same time I have been discussing it both 

 publicly and privately, has led me to see that though the imme- 

 diate difficulty is a practical one and requires a practical solution, 

 it must be attacked primarily from its philosophical side. I see quite 

 clearly that had I confined myself merely to stating the difficulty 

 I should have gained a good deal of sympathy; but I did not do 

 so, I went further and made a definite constructive proposal 

 involving a reform of our methods of naming specimens. We all 

 know that, provided we only stick to the work, a practical way 

 out of a practical difficulty is always sooner or later suggested by 

 the work itself; and that happened in this case. After a seven 

 years' hopeless attempt to give scientific precision to what was, 



