212 FOOT-NOTES TO EVOLUTION. 
Sometimes these qualities could be exactly meas- 
ured, in which case a new species was described. Some- 
times they proved elusive, and the sup- 
posed new species were added to the 
great dust heap of synonymy. The 
work of the systematic zoologists of the last generation 
was chiefly in museum cataloguing and labelling. To 
them these half-tangible varieties were the object of 
special opprobrium. On the museum shelves they were 
simply a nuisance, obscuring the characters of the real 
species and throwing closet-formed ideas of Nature into 
utter confusion. Professor Cope tells us how variant 
shells have been crushed under the heel of the indignant 
conchologist because they would go neither into species 
“A” nor species “ B.” Specimens were often preserved 
from “typical localities,” so that no confusion might be 
introduced among the cherished specific characters. 
That Nature went on producing these varying and inter- 
mediate forms was no concern of the zoologist. That 
such forms were any part of Nature’s real plan appar- 
ently never occurred to the followers of Linnzus. 
Says the botanist De Candolle: “They are mistaken 
who suppose that the greater part of our species are 
clearly limited, and that the doubtful species are in a 
feeble minority. This seemed to be true as long asa 
genus was imperfectly known, and its species were 
founded on a few specimens—that is to say, were pro- 
visional only; just as we come to know them better, 
intermediate forms flow in, and doubts as to the limits 
of the species become more numerous.” 
The ease with which slight variations have deceived 
and confused naturalists has been one of the most dis- 
couraging features in the history of science. Such va- 
riations have formed the basis of thousands of useless 
and distracting names. 
Doubtful 
species. 
