THE TENDENCIES OF SYSTEMATIC BOTANY. 
261 
of the genus Puccinia , by unison of TEcidium as an hymeniferous 
stage, to replace the names of the venerable authors of the ori- 
ginal species by their own ; and Persoon, De Candolle and others, 
have been thrust aside to make room for the Schmidts and 
Schneiders of the new age. It has even been deemed a sufficient 
warrant for superseding the name of the original author attached 
to a species of Puccinia , to cite, or suppose some special form of 
Trichobasis as its uredo-form. By this means one large or 
variable species has afforded material for a dozen or twenty. It 
is most probable that each species of Puccinia has its uredo- 
form, although it is very doubtful whether they have been accu- 
rately assigned in all instances when the attempt has been 
made, often upon the slightest semblance of evidence. It is 
doubtful whether, in cases where mycologists have given new 
names to supposed species of Puccinia on the assumption that 
they have found the hymeniferous state in some JEcidium , or 
the uredo-form in some Trichobasis — wholly ignoring specific 
names previously applied to the bicellular, or most perfect con- 
dition, by old authors — should not find their newnames discarded, 
and the old names revived, even if their suppositions prove true. 
To some persons the method resorted to by certain species-makers 
of discarding recognised names seems like tc sharp practice ; ” it 
may be that harsher terms are applied to those who have effaced 
older and worthier names on an excuse so paltry, and which 
must fail to secure them the esteem of thoughtful workers in a 
future generation, when the fashion of the day has passed away. 
It is scarcely necessary to refer at length to the acknowledged 
tendency towards increasing inordinately the number of sup- 
posed species. To secure uniformity of recognition of the limits 
of species is a hopeless task ; nevertheless, sometimes the most 
credulous are subject to severe trials of faith. It is a relief to 
contemplate the terse and compact manner in which all the 
characteristic features of a species are compressed within the 
limits of two or three lines by some of the older botanists, as 
compared with the prolix thirty or forty lines in which attempts 
are made to characterise some new species, which the author 
himself scarcely seems to believe in. Constant care is necessary, 
not only against following example but too widely extended, 
but to guard against mistaking the variability of individuals 
for specific differences. The broader and more extended expe- 
rience becomes, the larger the number of the same undoubted 
species and its allies which the botanist is privileged to examine 
from remote habitats or distant parts of the world, the less dis- 
posed is he to construct species hastily ; and hence we find that 
the most irrepressible makers of new species are usually those 
whose experiences are confined within narrow limits. Excep- 
tional cases may be found in those who are called upon to 
describe the flora of a new country. 
