532 



SCIENCE. 



[X. S. Vol. XXI. Xo. 536. 



features as nearly as the modification will 

 permit. 



It is to my mind impossible to find any 

 support for a theory of evolution by minute 

 changes from the study of anatomical vari- 

 ations. I should not venture to say, on the 

 other hand, that they give any direct sup- 

 port to the theory of mutation ; but at least 

 they are not in disaccord with it. 



Systematic Worh and Evolution: L. H. 

 Bailey, Director of the College of Agri- 

 culture, Cornell University. 

 Every object of which we take cogniz- 

 ance must be named if we are to record 

 and convey the ideas associated with it. 

 As the names accumulate, it is necessary 

 that we group them, or provide some 

 scheme of arrangement. We classify all 

 categories, even though we do no more than 

 to arrange them alphabetically. Nomen- 

 clature and classification are primary intel- 

 lectual processes. 



The number of organisms that we know 

 has come to be legion. These organisms 

 are described in bocks. The first descrip- 

 tions accepted the organisms as they are, 

 without serious inquiry of their origins. 

 Definite names have come to be attached to 

 each kind of organism and definite customs 

 have arisen to control the bestowal of the 

 names. Biological nomenclature has be- 

 come a rigid bibliographical method. 



The fir.st object of classification was to 

 afford a perspicuous arrangement of facts. 

 The facts must be pigeon-holed, else they 

 may be lost. Gradually, however, the idea 

 of relationship between the objects has de- 

 veloped, and these ideas have expressed 

 themselves in crystallized .schemes of classi- 

 fication. That is to say, classification of 

 organisms is a combination and ('omi)roinise 

 of bibliographical mcthcd and expi-cssiim 

 of relationships. 



Presently, the organisms themselves be- 

 gan to be studied from the ijliysiolcgioal 



side. It was discovered that at least some 

 of the named groups of organisms are not 

 entities. There are all grades of differ- 

 ences, from those peculiar to one individual 

 to those peculiar to many individuals, and 

 to groups of individuals. The organisms 

 are multifarious and elastic, but nomen- 

 clatorial and taxonomic systems are edi- 

 torial and arbitrary. 



We are all now committed to the evolu- 

 tion philosophy as a working hypothesis. 

 The greatest problems in the study of or- 

 ganic nature are the determining cf the 

 lines of ascent and the means by which they 

 have come about. We study plastic ma- 

 terial; at the same time we are making a 

 desperate effort, at least on the botanical 

 side, towards rigidity of nomenclature. 

 Our ideas of what constitutes species and 

 varieties are free and extensible enough, 

 but our methods of designating these ideas 

 still follow the formalism of a century ago 

 — are in fact more inflexible than they were 

 in the time of Linnaeus. If nomenclature 

 is inelastic, schemes of classification within 

 the genus or species must likewise be in- 

 elastic, for the classification is but an ex- 

 pression of our ideas of the relationships 

 of the objects that we name. Our nomen- 

 clature dees not express either the knowl- 

 edge or the point of view of our time. 



The Present Status of Systematic Work. 

 — There are three elements in the discus- 

 sion of systematic work as related to trans- 

 mutation theories : ( 1 ) The idea of a .spe- 

 cies, (2) the methods of naming and re- 

 cording, (3) the classificatory schemes 

 themselves. 



It would be profitless at this time to 

 enter into a disquisition as to what a species 

 is. The many discussions of this subject 

 are so many admissions that no one knows. 

 The only point I care now to make is that 

 we all recognize the fact that the single 

 word 'species' covers groups of widely dif- 

 ferent grades of value, of differentiation. 



