— 20 — 
true so long as a genus was imperfectly known and its species were founded 
on a few specimens, that is to say, were provisional. Just as we come to 
know them better intermediate forms flow in and doubts as to specific 
limits augment.” 
In this connection it may be well to quote Darwin in the chapter on 
“Variation under Nature” in Origin of Species. “From these remarks,” 
he says, “ it will be seen that I look at the term species as one arbitrarily 
given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling 
each other and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety which 
is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms.” It is needless to say 
that Darwin’s pet theory was “natural selection.” Before him other scient- 
ists had shown that in the organic world the indications pointed to an evolu- 
tionary process. Darwin claimed that the “ survival of the fittest” was the 
keynote to this process. To better cope with the changing conditions 
continually presenting themselves in the world, species gave off varieties 
these either disappeared in the course of time or became species, and these 
in turn gave off other varieties which likewise either disappeared or became 
species, and so on and on. 
Under the guidance of such teachings it is no great wonder that the out- 
put of new species is as large as it is, for if Huxley's views be followed, call- 
ing for not only distinctive but invariable characters, and these not rarely 
the lowest in the scale of taxonomic values, the number of species must of 
necessity be largely augmented. On the other hand, if species is a term 
arbitrarily given for convenience sake to a set of individuals closely resem- 
bling each other, as Darwin would have us believe, the easiest way to dis- 
pose of a given specimen which does not readily fall in the line of recognized 
species, is to dub it a “new species” and let it conveniently pass at that. 
Thus it happens that mere scraps, without sexual organs or fruit, gathered 
from the “four corners,” serve as the material out of which large batches of 
new species are made, apparently more for the glory of the makers than for 
the advancement of science. Taking advantage of Darwin’s “conveni- 
ence ” for exploiting their ephemeral creations, they seem to lose sight of 
one of his requirements, in fact the principal one, namely, a “set of indi- 
viduals.” Possibly it is assumed that this “set” is found in a single speci- 
men — I refer to mosses — but I am inclined to think that this assumption is a 
contravention of his real meaning. By “set” he probably intends to 
include a number of individuals not appearing in one tuft or from a single 
locality. 
But Huxley’s “ group ” and Darwin’s “set” are alike objectionable in 
that they imply something artificial. In fact this is the dangerous reef upon 
which we are now stranded. Is it not about time for us to break away from 
these Linnean conceptions and to settle ourselves down to a more rational 
basis? Evolution does its work along well defined lines, not sporadically. 
If a species means anything, it means a series of individuals possessing cer- 
tain distinctive but not invariable characters. In the higher orders of plants 
the sexual organs furnish excellent characters, not only for generic, but for 
