ABCHEB. ON MICB.ASXEKIAS MAHABULESHWAKENSIS (HOBS.) 81 



self-division to lay the foundation, as it were, or become the primordial 

 individual of any other described or undescribed so-called species ? Surely 

 not — such are simply monstrosities. Nor do I mean to aver that minor 

 differences, of probably but temporary character, and which cannot be 

 accounted monstrosities, do not occur. Species, indeed, vary here as else- 

 where, but by no means so materially as in some other groups ; and I 

 believe I may state that in British forms, so far as my experience indeed 

 goes, such trivial variations are but rarely carried to that extent that there 

 is any doubt or difficulty as to the actual species, that is, as to identifying 

 a form under observation with examples of the same form with which 

 one has previously become familiarized. What is gained by the group- 

 ing together a number of allied but well distinguished forms under a 

 common name as presumed varieties of a single species ? I do not believe 

 that it is more in accordance with Nature, nor even is it in our books 

 likely to be more convenient. The very fact of recognising them as 

 varieties presupposes and acknowledges their distinctions. If those dis- 

 tinctions be constant and permanent, it is surely better, even if only to 

 avoid the inevitable periphrasis and cumbrous circumlocution and result- 

 ant confusion in one's mind, to give each a name, or, having got one, to 

 allow it to retain it. It seems to me that, no matter how we may arrange it 

 in our books, our pools (and may I venture so far to reason upon analogy, 

 and dare to add that I doubt not, those of India ?) will persist in offering 

 to us the distinct forms, and as a rule resolutely withhold the gradational 

 ones. Is it not more convenient, then, when we call each of these to 

 mind, or speak of them, to have each associated with its name, than to be 

 obliged to refer to them as var. «, /3, 7, or c, of a certain supposed 

 standard or typical form — this latter not in itself, perhaps, more decidedly 

 or distinctly separated from any of the so-called varieties than are they 

 from each other, nor less so ; and possibly all not less distinct from each 

 other than each is distinct from some neighbouring form, though it may 

 be honoured by its name ? I conceive, then, that the ultimate forms in 

 this group which the waters present should be considered as species, and 

 each coupled with its name. Perhaps I may be thought to contend for a 

 mere word ; and that, in urging for the rank of species for each of these 

 forms, it is a kind of begging of the question. But I am not contending 

 for any rank for them, nor for any more or less restricted application of 

 the term species. Let them be called ultimate forms, or any other name, 

 or give them no systematic standing ; but let each have its own name, 

 and do not confuse the student by a too copious and arbitrary employ- 

 ment of Greek letters. 



These " ultimate forms" (" species" to me) conjugate only with each 

 other — in the few instances which have been traced so far, they repro- 

 duce their exact like from the spore — they seem always readily distin- 

 guishable one from another ; therefore I conceive that with those who 

 would arbitrarily combine certain groups of them together (not indeed 

 generically, but) under a common specific name, rests the onus proband* 

 as regards the opposite side of the question. 



To revert, then, to the forms included by Dr. Wallieh under one 



