26 NOVA SYNOPSIS RUBORUM GERMANIA ET VIRGINIA 
assigned to an earlier geological period, and supposed that the 
original parents might have died out or changed. The essential 
difference of my conception from that of my teacher lies in my 
tracing the polymorphism of the brambles to the crossing of species 
still living and still distinguishable.” Both theories rest mainly — 
upon the presence of defective pollen-grains in a great majority of 
the brambles tested by Dr. Focke: a phenomenon which does not 
seem to have been verified hitherto by British microscopists, and 
which, if found to hold good, is a prima facie presumption in favour 
of some hybrid origin, remote or recent. Of the two, Dr. Focke's 
appears to me to be by far the more probable, though I greatly 
says (p. 6): “In my experience, hybrids predominate in all 
collections’; but is this capable of anything like proof ? 
i p 
this sensible remark: ‘‘ We need only bear in mind that the species 
ed by us exists but for a time, not for ever. 
understand what is meant by this—probably, suspected hybrids. 
Dr. Krause’s chapte nom ure is mos ous. After 
sayin that ‘all scientific nomenclature misses its object 
ess the greatest possible perma e is stri ,” and that 
‘* the uded principle of priority has the greater 
muddle the more strict] has been foll 
tom of appending the 
riber’ What a delightful prospect lies before 
us, if this example is generally followed in Germany or elsewhere, 
the present work well illustrates; in a good many cases one call 
only conjecture what plant Dr. Krause intends by the particular 
name used. ‘‘Subspécies stand between variety and species, as & 
semicolon between comma and full stop.” This is a good working 
