^^SoT}        Plant  Morphology  and  Taxonomy.  415 
is  coming  to  be  recognized.  The  best  illustration  of  this  is  to  be 
found  in  the  monograph  on  the  genus  Eucalyptus  by  Baker  and 
Smith.    They  say  : — 
When  this  research  was  first  started  it  was  intended  to  follow  the  usual  mor- 
phological systematic  classification  of  previous  botanists;  but  as  the  work  pro- 
gressed it  was  found  that  nothing  definite  could  be  arrived  at  if  such  a  course 
were  followed. 
By  working  on  morphological  grounds  alone  it  was  found  that  many  of  the 
so-called  individual  species  possessed  different  barks,  timber,  oils,  dyes,  etc.,  a 
state  of  things  which  quite  differed  from  our  definition  of  a  species,  and  conse- 
quently, such  an  artificial  system  (as  this  research  appeared  to  prove  it)  had  to 
be  discarded,  and  wuat  is  apparently  a  more  real  or  natural  system  of  classifi- 
cation had  to  be  adopted,  viz.,  founding  a  species,  not  on  morphological  char- 
acters of  dried  material  alone,  but  on  : 
( 1 )  A  perfect  field  knowledge  of  the  trees. 
(2)  The  nature  and  character  of  their  barks. 
(3)  The  nature  and  character  of  their  timbers. 
(4)  Morphology  of  their  fruits,  leaves,  buds,  etc. 
(5)  Chemical  properties  and  physical  characters  of  the  oils,  dyes,  kinos,  etc., 
and  any  other  evidence,  such  as  histology,  physiology,  etc.,  that  will  assist  in 
establishing  differences  or  affinities  of  species. 
Our  experience  shows  that  a  species  so  founded  is  practically  constant  in 
specific  characters,  however  great  the  range  of  distribution  may  be. 
It  is  thus  seen  that  in  both  morphological  and  taxonomic  work, 
experimental  and  physiological  studies  are  coming  to  be  recognized 
more  and  more  as  of  fundamental  importance,  and  that  the  old 
comparative  method  alone  is  no  longer  adequate  in  dealing  with 
the  problems  which  confront  either  the  morphologist  or  taxono- 
mist.  It  is  apparent  that  a  large  amount  of  research  work  along 
various  lines  is  necessary  to  establish  species  with  certainty,  unless 
indeed  recourse  be  had  to  physiological  studies  and  pedigree  cul- 
tures alone,  which  are  not  less  laborious. 
While  lack  of  thoroughness  in  both  morphological  and  physio- 
logical investigations  is  no  doubt  partly  responsible  for  the  confu- 
sion existing  in  systematic  work,  still  there  has  been  another  factor 
which  has  been  more  or  less  demoralizing,  and  this  is  the  manner 
in  which  the  nomenclature  question  has  been  handled  in  recent 
years.  To  say  the  least,  our  system  of  nomenclature  is  truly 
mediaeval.  When  we  think  of  the  efforts  of  Linnaeus  to  simplify 
botanical  nomenclature,  we  cannot  but  wonder  what  he  would  think, 
were  he  living,  of  the  botanical  names  of  to-day,  burdened  as  they 
