90 



THE AMERICAN BOTANIST 



on one of the larger groups of invertebrate animals. No reply 

 whatever was made to the line of reasoning set forth by me. I 

 was merely ''squelched" with the rejoinder that if I had suffic- 

 iently wide experience in describing species I would see things 

 in a different light — a statement which is possibly true though 

 proving nothing as to the point at issue. Our taxonomic 

 brethren have so long been treated as ''poor relations" by those 

 who complacently believe their own studies to be concerned 

 with real biology that this sort of a "tu quoque'' is now and 

 then to be expected. But such class consciousness should be 

 laid aside and the question candidly considered whether the en- 

 tire biological profession, or indeed, society at large, does not 

 have a proprietary interest in taxonomic names. A very little 

 reflection will show that this is true. The case is not at all 

 dissimilar to a coal or railway strike in which the rights of the 

 public — the real sufferers — are entirely ignored by the disput- 

 ants. And we may say with equal justice that the chief suffer- 

 ers from an unstable system of nomenclature are not the tax- 

 onomists — whether "splitters" or "lumpers" — but the hosts of 

 unfortunates who are under the constant necessity of using 

 these names while having no share in their creation or trans- 

 mutation. 



The Cjuestion raises itself whether, the detection of re- 

 semblances in nature is not as important as the detection of dif- 

 ferences. Is it not largely this unity in variety — or variety in 

 unity — which fascinates the true nature lover, be he an ame- 

 teur, beginning student, or professional biologist? And it can 

 hardly be denied that the extent of our recognition of such 

 unity is greatly influenced by the names which we find applied 

 to things. — From an article by F. B. Soincr in Science. 



