Few naturalists will doubt that all these may and probably have been derived from a common stock, and therefore it seems desirable that there should be a unity in our method of treating them; either call them all varieties or all species. Varieties, however, continually get overlooked; in lists of species they are often altogether unrecorded; and thus we are in danger of neglecting the interesting phenomena of variation and distribution which they present. I think it advisable, therefore, to name all such forms; and those who will not accept them as species may consider them as subspecies or races.

6. Species. Species are merely those strongly marked races or local forms which when in contact do not intermix, and when inhabiting distinct areas are generally believed to have had a separate origin, and to be incapable of producing a fertile hybrid offspring. But as the test of hybridity cannot be applied in one case in ten thousand, and even if it could be applied would prove nothing, since it is founded on an assumption of the very question to be decided-and as the test of separate origin is in every case inapplicable—and as, further, the test of nonintermixture is useless, except in those rare cases where the most closely allied species are found inhabiting the same area, it will be evident that we have no means whatever of distinguishing so-called "true species" from the several modes of variation here pointed out, and into which they so often pass by an insensible gradation. It is quite true that, in

M

the great majority of cases, what we term "species are so well marked and definite that there is no difference of opinion about them; but as the test of a true theory is, that it accounts for, or at the very least is not inconsistent with, the whole of the phenomena and apparent anomalies of the problem to be solved, it is reasonable to ask that those who deny the origin of species by variation and selection should grapple with the facts in detail, and show how the doctrine of the distinct origin and permanence of species will explain and harmonize them. It has been recently asserted by Dr. J. E. Gray (in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society for 1863, page 134), that the difficulty of limiting species is in proportion to our ignorance, and that just as groups or countries are more accurately known and studied in greater letail the limits of species become settled. This statement has, like many other general assertions, its portion of both truth and error. There is no doubt that many uncertain species, founded on few or isolated specimens, have had their true nature determined by the study of a good series of examples: they have been thereby established as species or as varieties; and the number of times this has occurred is doubtless very great. But there are other, and equally trustworthy cases, in which, not single species, but whole groups have, by the study of a vast accumulation of materials, been proved to have no definite specific limits. A few of these must be adduced. In Dr. Carpenter's "Introduction to the Study of the Fora

minifera," he states that "there is not a single specimen of plant or animal of which the range of variation has been studied by the collocation and comparison of so large a number of specimens as have passed under the review of Messrs. Williamson, Parker, Rupert Jones, and myself, in our studies of the types of this group;" and the result of this extended comparison of specimens is stated to be, "The range of variation is so great among the Foraminifera as to include not merely those differential characters which have been usually accounted SPECIFIC, but also those upon which the greater part of the GENERA of this group have been founded, and even in some instances those of its ORDERS" (Foraminifera, Preface, x). Yet this same group had been divided by D'Orbigny and other authors into a number of clearly defined families, genera, and species, which these careful and conscientious researches have shown to have been almost all founded on incomplete knowledge.

Professor DeCandolle has recently given the results of an extensive review of the species of Cupuliferæ. He finds that the best-known species of oaks are those which produce most varieties and subvarieties; that they are often surrounded by provisional species; and, with the fullest materials at his command, twothirds of the species he considers more or less doubtful. His general conclusion is, that "in botany the lowest series of groups, SUBVARIETIES, VARIETIES, and RACES are very badly limited; these can be grouped into SPECIES a little less vaguely limited, which again can be formed into sufficiently precise GENERA." This

general conclusion is entirely objected to by the writer of the article in the "Natural History Review," who, however, does not deny its applicability to the particular order under discussion, while this very difference of opinion is another proof that difficulties in the determination of species do not, any more than in the higher groups, vanish with increasing materials and more accurate research.

Another striking example of the same kind is seen in the genera Rubus and Rosa, adduced by Mr. Darwin himself; for though the amplest materials exist for a knowledge of these groups, and the most careful research has been bestowed upon them, yet the various species have not thereby been accurately limited and defined so as to satisfy the majority of botanists. In Mr. Baker's revision of the British Roses, just published by the Linnæan Society, the author includes under the single species Rosa canina, no less than twenty-eight named varieties, distin guished by more or less constant characters and often confined to special localities; and to these are referred about seventy of the species of Continental and British botanists.

Dr. Hooker seems to have found the same thing in his study of the Arctic flora. For though he has had much of the accumulated materials of his predecessors to work upon, he continually expresses himself as unable to do more than group the numerous and apparently fluctuating forms into more or less imperfectly defined species. In his paper on the "Dis

tribution of Arctic Plants," (Trans. Linn. Soc. xxiii., p. 310) Dr. Hooker says:-"The most able and experienced descriptive botanists vary in their estimate of the value of the specific term' to a much greater extent than is generally supposed.' "I think I may safely affirm that the 'specific term' has three different standard values, all current in descriptive botany, but each more or less confined to one class of observers." "This is no question of what is right or wrong as to the real value of the specific term; I believe each is right according to the standard he assumes as the specific."

Lastly, I will adduce Mr. Bates's researches on the Amazons. During eleven years he accumulated vast materials, and carefully studied the variation and distribution of insects. Yet he has shown that many species of Lepidoptera, which before offered no special difficulties, are in reality most intricately combined in a tangled web of affinities, leading by such gradual steps from the slightest and least stable variations to fixed races and well-marked species, that it is very often impossible to draw those sharp dividing-lines which it is supposed that a careful study and full materials will always enable us to do.

These few examples show, I think, that in every department of nature there occur instances of the instability of specific form, which the increase of mate rials aggravates rather than diminishes. And it must be remembered that the naturalist is rarely likely to err on the side of imputing greater indefiniteness to