7o  Next  Steps  in  Botanical  Science.  {k^Z'y^t 
brought  in  to  help  separate  the  large  numbers  into  smaller  groups. 
This  was  the  earlier  classification,  based  upon  structure  alone.  It 
was  taxonomy  without  doubt,  and  it  was  helpful,  since  it  enabled 
us  to  arrange  plants  in  an  orderly  fashion,  but  it  ignored  the  fact 
that  plants  have  ancestors,  and  that  the  plants  of  to-day  are  what 
they  are  through  their  inheritance  of  ancestral  characters,  accom- 
panied by  modifications  peculiar  to  them  alone.  When,  however, 
the  doctrine  of  evolution  came  into  botany  it  brought  with  it  the 
idea  of  descent,  and  thereafter  taxonomy  included  phylogeny.  To- 
day the  taxonomist  is  no  longer  content  to  stop  with  a  knowledge 
of  the  structural  differences  between  plants;  he  must  know  how 
this  structure  arose  from  that ;  he  must  know  which  is  the  primitive 
structure  and  which  the  derived.  Phylogeny  has  so  far  entered 
into  taxonomy  that  it  has  given  new  meaning  to  the  work  of  the 
systematic  botanist,  and  it  is  bringing  into  this  department  of  the 
science  something  of  the  philosophical  aspect  which  was  nearly 
wanting  heretofore.  That  this  must  be  the  direction  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  taxonomy  of  the  future  is  without  question,  and  we 
may  look  confidently  for  a  marked  expansion  and  enlargement  of 
the  phyletic  idea  in  botanical  taxonomy. 
And  here  I  may  pause  for  a  moment  to  advert  to  a  part  of 
taxonomy  with  which  some  biologists  have  little  patience,  without 
good  reason,  as  it  seems  to  me.  I  refer  to  the  matter  of  taxonomic 
nomenclature  which  has  vexed  the  souls  of  many  botanists,  especially 
during  the  past  one  or  two  decades.  However,  since  every  science 
must  have  its  nomenclature  it  is  childish  for  us  to  wish  to  ignore 
it  in  botany.  It  is  a  part  of  the  science,  and  we  must  give  it  con- 
sideration if  we  are  to  do  our  full  duty.  I  have  been  surprised 
many  times  when  men  have  spoken  disparagingly  of  the  whole 
matter  of  nomenclature,  and  of  those  who  are  giving  time  and 
effort  to  its  stabilization.  While  it  may  be  granted  that  not  every 
botanist  is  in  duty  bound  to  help  to  settle  questions  of  nomenclature, 
or  even  to  take  part  in  framing  the  general  rules  of  procedure, 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  one  to  appreciate  and  encourage  those  who 
are  so  engaged.  It  has  sometimes  seemed  to  me  as  I  have  heard 
wholesale  denunciations  of  nomenclature  and  nomenclaturists  that 
instead  of  being  botanists  we  are  only  cytologists,  morphologists, 
physiologists,  pathologists,  ecologists. 
This  contempt  for  nomenclatural  questions  is  symptomatic  of 
a  much-to-be-deprecated  state  of  mind,  quite  too  common  among 
