156 



THE AMERICAN BOTANIST 



many helps toward the singhng out of spurious species. When, 

 by the proper manipulation of a certain form, other forms 

 previously described as distinct species are derived from it, 

 we are forced to the conclusion that the describer of such 

 species was mistaken, no matter how eminent a scientist he is. 

 In Bateson's ''Principles of Heredit}^"' the author well says : 

 ''One has only to glance over trays of bird skins, the port- 

 folios of a herbarium or drawers of butterflies _and moths to 

 discover abundant 'species' which are analytical varieties of 

 others. ^ ^ ^ Plenty of the characters which are now 

 known to segregate would be far more than sufficient to con- 

 stitute specific differences in the eyes of most systematists 

 were the plants and animals in question brought home by 

 collectors. We may even be certain that numbers of excellent 

 species universally recognized by entomologists and ornitholo- 

 gists, for example, would, if subjected to breeding tests, be 

 immediately proved to be analytical varieties differing from 

 each other merely in the presence or absence of definite fac- 

 tors." It may be added that the ornithologists and entomo- 

 logists have no monopoly of the naming of species that are 

 not species. Probably the worst offenders on earth are the 

 botanists. However, as Bateson has indicated, the tide is 

 turning and one is warranted in assuming that the next manual 

 of botany to be issued will list a much smaller number of species 

 and still include all those that occur in its region. 



