series of forms a central point can be created and become binomial, or that 
a variety or form can be created a forma typica thereby. 
Mr. Andrews objects to my rule that the definition (Diagnose) of a series 
of forms (Formenreihe) must be short. If it be grounded only on one form 
as e. g. Sphagnum rubellum Wils. , one of the red acutifolia forms, as many 
Warnstorf species are based on one specimen, then the diagnosis must 
naturally be far reaching. Should, however, several forms be united in one 
series of forms (Formenreihe) the contents of the conception are enlarged, 
then the definition must logically be abridged. If therefore there should be 
added to the original Sphagnum rubellum Wils., which exists only in the red 
variety, green, yellow and pale forms, the attribute “red” is out of place 
and must be applied only to the particular variety. It is the same with the 
other differentiating attributes. The more varieties a “ Formenreihe ” has, 
or receives in course of time, the more do its characteristic attributes shrink, 
the simpler and shorter will the definition of the Formenreihe be. On the 
whole the capacity and extent of an idea stand in inverse ratio, or in other 
words the wider and larger its capacity the narrower and smaller is the 
extent of the diagnosis. 
I should not mention this w’ell-known fact, if Mr. Andrews in ignoring 
this did not find in the short diagnosis of a long Formenreihe “an incom- 
plete description,” and make it seem responsible, for the difficulty of bring- 
ing single forms together in their proper places. This difficulty really exists. 
The cause, however, does not lie in the shortness of the diagnosis, but in 
Nature. A wide reaching definition makes no alteration in this. It would 
on the contrary make the classification even more difficult. For when one 
also includes in this definition the characteristics of the forms which do not 
belong to them, we get such expressions as: mostly, often, generally, here 
and there, now and then, seldom, and others which make a definition both 
confused, uncertain and impractical. In this way definitions would be no 
diagnosis of species, but remain diagnosis of forms. 
The adherents of the old method ignore the intermediate forms which 
are difficult to classify, the followers of the new method devote their atten- 
tion to just these forms; they try to connect and not to separate species in 
their investigation of Sphagnicm. They do not rest satisfied with the defi. 
nition of species, they do not allow a system to limit enquiry, they attempt 
to translate Nature’s language by dint of close observation. To throw 
overboard transitory forms is a mistake easily explained by motives of con- 
venience, but the adherents of this method ignore such forms from a desire 
to deny an a priori species; in fact they seem to regard connecting forms as 
