390 



At the same time, in order to contrast the darkly hinted at reactionary- 

 morphological methods of unnamed workers, Messrs. Baker and Smith (" Research," 

 2nd Edition, p. 9) expressly exclude Mueller from criticism. I think that we should 

 never lose sight of our vast indebtedness to Mueller, even if, in an historical survey, 

 we historically state his reactionary views at particular periods. 



Messrs. Baker and Smith persistently desire to leave the impression that the 

 present writer is one of the " morphologists " included in their disapproval, while 

 they forget, as regards oil alone, that before I left the Technological Museum, I caused 

 to be constructed (as Superintendent of Technical Education, and in spite of the 

 stupid opposition of years in certain quarters) that very oihstill which rendered 

 possible Mr. Smith's admirable researches. All during the years I pleaded for 

 examination of all procurable evidence, in the elucidation of species, and taught them 

 so, while they were my subordinates. I was, indeed, one of the pioneers of this view 

 in Australia. Over twenty years ago I wrote in Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., in my 

 Presidential Address before the Linnean Society : — 



" I do not lose sight of the fact for one moment that, in the discrimination of genera and species we 

 should call to our assistance any characters that can be employed to that end. Prof. John M. Coulter in 

 his Vice-Presidential Address, Section P (Biology), Amer. Assoc. Adv. Science, 1891, p. 300, eloquently 

 pleads for a philosophical conception of a species in the following passage : " The character of a species 

 is an extremely composite affair, and it must stand or fall by the sum-total of its peculiarities and not by a 

 single one. A specific character in one group may be a generic character in a closely-related one, or no 

 character at all. Therefore, there is nothing that involves a broader grasp of facts, the use of an inspiration 

 rather than a rule, than proper discrimination of species. I have a belief that the arbitrary rule-of-three 

 mind will never make a successful taxonomist: and that there is a sort of instinct for specific limitations 

 which the possessor cannot communicate to another. This taking into account the total character of a 

 plant, irom fades to minute characters, will furnish the basis of future descriptive work. The more obstacles 

 that can be put in the way of hasty determination the better.' " 



We welcome any hint as to differences between species brought to light by 

 chemical analysis or examination of physical characters of oils obtained from their 

 leaves. Following is an extract from a criticism made by the late Dr. Thomas Hall 

 in the Australasian of 22nd November, 1902, on the true place of Eucalyptus oil. 

 It is a character — as regards the vast majority of species it is not even a dominant 

 character. It is sometimes a useful character, and we must assess its proper value, 

 but it is by no means a " Philosopher's Stone." 



" Some months ago attention was drawn to the idea put forward by Messrs. Baker and Smith, that it 

 is, above all things, necessary to consider the nature of the oils and other products of the trees in order to 

 decide what a species was. This suggestion will undoubtedly meet with strong opposition alike from 

 botanists and zoologists. Plants and animals are universally classified on their form, or on those external 

 characters which are capable of detection, either by the unaided eye or by the aid of a microscope. Or to 

 put the case in a scientific way, we say that classification is founded on morphological characters. The 

 method suggested by the authors is to employ other characters, or, in other words, to found classification 

 on physiological ones. It is an elementary rule in classifications of an}^ kind that there should be no cross 

 division. For instance, we cannot divide men into black-haired, yellow-haired and tobacco-smokers, and 

 to allow physiological considerations to have weight in one group would open the door to a complete change 

 in all our ideas. It is true that the classification of bacteria is, to a great extent, physiological, and not a 

 morphological one. It rests on a consideration of function rather than of form, but no one considers the 

 genera and species of bacteria as in any way comparable to those of other organisms founded on the character 

 usually employed." 



