440 



may be a sign of strength and not of weakness, and it is necessary to emphasise this 

 where there may be flabbiness in regard to principle. On the other hand, we must not 

 make a recantation without very carefully considering the evidence that seems to tell 

 in favour of such a course, otherwise we shall be like a straw blown by the wind. . . 



" Different workers give what I have referred to as physiological species different 

 names. This is an expression of the desire to co-ordinate form and function. I have 

 written and spoken on this subject for many years, at least from 1889, in my Linnean 

 Presidential Address for 1902, and in my British Association paper in 1914, for example. 

 The lines of demarcation of the physiological species are always hard to define. There 

 must always be a penumbra. In 1902 I employed comparison of the overlapping of 

 circles and water supplies; in 1914 I quoted, taking an illustration from history, the 

 saying of Lord Haldane that the historian surely must resemble a portrait painter rather 

 that the photographer. . . . (See Part LVII, p. 291.) 



" And so through the gamut of human experience the outstanding lesson we 

 have to learn is to view subjects from as many aspects as possible. The point that 

 non-taxonomists and non-botanists often confuse is that while physiological characters 

 may illuminate our eyes in order that we see morphological points which were not 

 previously clear, we cannot use these physiological characters for the purpose of classi- 

 fication in ordinary taxonomic work, except in so far as they can be translated into the 

 morphological character correlated to them. . . ." 



2. How to Designate the Type. 

 Useful papers for reference are : — 



(1) " Merotypes as a means of multiplying botanical types," by Walter T. Swingle, 



Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci., ii, 220, 4th May, 1912. 



" The type specimen of an organism constitutes a fixed point in the taxonomic survey of the group 

 of individuals which make up the species, and, while it may not be typical of the latter in the ordinary 

 English sense, it does at least determine one form which must remain in the species no matter how opinions 

 may vary as to its limits. It is now generally held that only one specimen is to be regarded as the true 

 type (holotype). all others studied by the author in describing his species being paratypes or co-types . . . 

 In the case of trees, shrubs and perennial herbs, it is furthermore possible to collect fresh sets of specimens 

 in subsequent years from the type plant, thus rendering it possible to send specimens to all parts of the 

 world. The word merotype has been proposed to designate such specimens, and may be defined as follows : — 

 merotype (mews, a part). A part of the individual organism that furnished the type specimen of a new 

 species, such part usually containing organs homologous to those represented in the type specimen." 



(2) " Clastotypes, clonotypes and spermotypes, means for multiplying botanical 



type specimens,"' by Walter T. Swingle, op. cit., ii. 344, August, 1912. 



" It is often possible to distribute to other herbaria fragments of existing types, and these, even if 

 very small, often have a high value. Such parts of types may be called Clastotypes (Klastos, broken). . . . 

 Cuttings or buds taken from the pjlant that furnished the type specimen can be indefinitely multiplied 

 by vegetative methods. Specimens cut from such plants may be called Clonotypes (Klon, a young shoot, 

 a twig). . . . Still another method of multiplying typical material is the sowing of seeds collected 

 from the individual plant that furnished the type specimen. Specimens cut from the seedlings may be 

 ermed Spermotypes (Sperma, a seed).'' 



