270 Mr Bernard, On the Unit of Classification 



have been thinking and saying shall find practical expression in 

 our methods. 



I should like to see the question put to all candidates for 

 Natural History appointments, "What are the aims of classifi- 

 cation?" The man who is a museum official and nothing more 

 would say: "In order that persons might bring their collections 

 and get them named." A more frequent answer, however, is, 

 " Classification is solely for the purposes of reference." Now the 

 last answer is sometimes given by men who fully appreciate the 

 vast field of research which the theory of Evolution has opened up. 

 " Continue the old fashion of naming," say they, "but don't call it 

 classification in any high sense. The gradual discovery of genetic 

 affinities by the construction of evolutionary series must be under- 

 taken separately with special formulae for that kind of work." 

 This is the attitude which Dr Sharp took up in a pamphlet 

 published nearly thirty years ago \ and, if I understand him 

 correctly, it is that which Professor Lankester seemed inclined to 

 endorse at one of the meetings of the Linnean Society given up 

 to the discussion of my proposals. 



But, the more I think about it, the less do I find it possible to 

 fall into line. Dr Sharp is of course perfectly correct in main- 

 taining that we can make no satisfactory classification of forms 

 which we take up, perhaps for the very first time, in order to 

 describe them and give them names for reference. Their real 

 positions in the evolutionary series must be left to future gene- 

 rations of zoologists to find out. But at the same time it seems 

 to me hopelessly unpractical, and indeed very undesirable, to 

 separate the naming of animal forms for reference from at least 

 some attempt at classification. We should have no means of 

 knowing what forms had been named, and what not, but for the 

 assistance which a classification gives us of running them down. 



This, however, does not completely overthrow the position of 

 those who are inclined to advocate that naming and classification 

 should be kept quite apart. For it is still possible to recommend the 

 continuance of the present rough and ready method of classification 

 for the purposes of mere naming for reference fully aware all the 

 while that the classification in no way corresponds with what we 

 now mean by natural classification. Such advice can hardly be 

 defended. It says : Let us start our work on lines which we 

 know to be faulty, in order that we may do it later all over again 

 on a better principle. 



This of course is the very last thing that Dr Sharp meant. 

 The real strength of his position lies in the fact that the only 

 available formula for classification implies, by the very terms 



1 Object and Method of Zoological Nomenclature. London, 1873. 



