SPLITTERS AND LTJMPEES. 



" Slmiige that suck difference sl.Oiild be 

 'Twixt tweeille-ditid tiud ttfeecUe-dee." 



WHEN our good correspondents, iu the sim- 

 plicity of their hearts, inquire of us what 

 these terms mean, and how they originated, they 

 little think what a courageous face they call upon 

 US to present, or how they challenge us to tread on 

 some one's dearly beloved corns, in any venture to 

 reply. 



Looking at the words themselves, they are very 

 good words in their proper places, very plain, and 

 very significaut ; therefore, it is only to some novel 

 application, forced or contorted, or it may be "cant" 

 acceptation of the Queen's English, that such 

 querists refer. If we are to credit the historian 

 (satirist?) there was once a court and a country 

 in which two factions raged. One party held, that 

 on entering a temple the right foot should be first 

 placed over the threshold, the other that the left 

 foot should be so employed. A new minister, or 

 vizier, was appointed. Public curiosity was at its 

 height when, on the day of installation into his high 

 office, he should enter the temple. Will he place 

 the right or the left foot first ? was the universal 

 inquiry. The hour and the man came, and the 

 temple was entered, but neither the right nor the 

 left foot party exulted. On arriving at the 

 threshold the new minister placed his two heels 

 firmly side by side, and thus leaped over the diffi- 

 culty and the threshold together. 



Wise or foolish in its origin or perpetuation, we 

 will not stay to ask : certain naturalists are honoured 

 with the title of Splitters, whilst others are denomi- 

 nated Lumpers, as if really there was a great 

 fundamental difference between them. Popular 

 creations in natural history are generally monsters ; 

 impossible beings such as sphinxes, centaurs, and 

 unicorns. So " Lumpers " are regarded as a faction 

 whose sole delight is in lumping together under one 

 name all analogous forms, and constituting a species 

 out of six or seven existing ones ; whilst " Splitters," 

 on the other hand, are an equally industrious fac- 

 tion whose occupation and amusement consist iu 

 hunting out the most trivial differences and dis- 

 tinctions, giving them a factitious value, and out of 

 one species constituting twenty new ones. We 

 need not add that such a character is unmerited by 



either. It may be true that amongst naturalists 

 there is a difference of opinion as to what shall con- 

 stitute or be the limits of a " species." If by any 

 patent method "what is a species " could be defi- 

 nitely and satisfactorily settled. Lumpers and 

 Splitters would be embalmed by the act with the 

 mummies of ancient Egypt. All recognise, but with 

 different values, the variations amongst individuals ; 

 a group of individuals agreeing amongst themselves, 

 in some departure from a given tjqoe, with more or 

 less of permanence, is to one man, or one section of 

 men, worthy of regard as a variety, whilst others 

 esteem the differences to be such as merit specific 

 distinction, to be relatively permanent, and to be 

 entitled to retain a distinct name, and take rank as 

 a species. We think that were a young student to 

 ask our advice, we should recommend him to imitate 

 the most inveterate splitter that he could imagine, 

 because such a course would, of necessity, compel 

 him to a rigid scrutiny and comparison, which 

 might thenceforth grow into a habit of close obser- 

 vation. On the other hand, we should feel disposed 

 to caution the matured naturalist against new species, 

 recommending him to cultivate a " conservative " 

 spirit, and to regard all allied forms as the same 

 species until he recognized unmistakeable evidences 

 that they could not have diverged from each other, 

 to that extent, under any ordinary conditions to 

 which animal or plant life might be submitted. 



The whole community is not agreed as to what 

 is happiness, or what is honour, or what is taste; 

 and it is somewhat invidious to apply terms 

 intended to be anything but complimentary to those 

 who differ in their interpretation of what is a species. 

 "We do not think that science suffers by including 

 iu her ranks men of extreme opinions on such au 

 "open question." Certainly if one reviews the 

 labours of the other carefully and caudidl}', or a 

 third looks on and balances the evidence on both sides, 

 there is more hope for the truth than if all v/ere 

 unanimous. To inquire of us, " What is the maxi- 

 mum speed of a cannon-ball ? " is bad enough, but to 

 ask us whether we belong to the high-heeled faction, 

 or the low-heeled party is worse, and all the reply 

 we can give is—Look at our boots and see ! 



