But the arguments on the other side much preponderate. In attempting to introduce all these new names into ordinary botanical language, the memory is taxed beyond the capabilities of any mind, and the original and legitimate object of the Linnæan nomenclature is wholly lost sight of. In a purely scientific view it matters little if the Orders are converted into Classes or Alliances, the Genera into Orders, and the Sections or Subsections into Genera: their relative importance does not depend on the names given to them, but on their height in the scale of comprehensiveness. But for language, the great implement without which science cannot work, it is of the greatest importance, as our Aphorism declares, That the groups which give their substantive names to every species which they include, should remain large. If, independently of the inevitable increase of Genera by new discoveries, such old ones as Ficus, Begonia, Arum, Erica, &c. are divided into 10, 20, 30, or 40 independent Genera, with names and characters which are to be recollected before any one species can be spoken of;—if Genera are to be reckoned by tens of thousands instead of by thousands;—the range of any individual botanist will be limited to a small portion of the whole field of the sciences.
And in like manner with regard to Orders, so long as the number of Orders can be kept within, or not much beyond a couple of hundred, it may reasonably be expected that a botanist of ordinary capacity shall obtain a sufficient general idea of their nature and characters to call them at any time individually to his mind for the purpose of comparison: but if we double the number of Orders, all is confusion.
The inevitable confusion and the necessity of maintaining in some way the larger groups, have been perceived by those even who have gone the furthest in lowering the scale of Orders and Genera. As a remedy for this confusion, they propose to erect the old genera into independent orders, and the old orders into classes 349 or divisions. But this is but an incomplete resumption of the old principles, without the advantage of the old nomenclature.
And it will not be asserted, with regard to these new genera, formed by cutting up the old ones, that the new group is better defined than the group above it: on the contrary, it is frequently less so. It is not pretended that Urostigma or Phannacosyce, new genera formed out of the old genus Ficus, are better defined than the genus Ficus: or that the new genera which have lately been cut out of the old genus Begonia, form more natural groups than Begonia itself does. The principle which seems to be adopted in such subdivisions of old genera is this: that the lowest definable group above a species is a genus. If we were to go a step further, every species becomes a genus with a substantive name.
It ought always to be recollected that though the analytical process carried to the uttermost, and separating groups by observation of differences, is necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the facts upon which botany or any other classificatory science is based, it is a judicious synthesis alone, associating individuals by the ties of language, which can enable the human mind to take a comprehensive view of these facts, to deduce from them the principles of the science, or to communicate to others either facts or principles.
2. Comparative Anatomy.
The Language of Botany, as framed by Linnæus, and regulated by his Canons, is still the most notable and successful example of scientific terminology which has obtained general reception among naturalists. But the Language of Anatomy, and especially of the Comparative Anatomy of the skeleton, has of late been an object of great attention to physiologists; and especially to Mr. Owen; and the collection of terms which he has proposed are selected with so much thought and care, that they may minister valuable lessons to us in this part of our subject.
There is, at first sight, this broad difference between the descriptive language of Botany and of Comparative 350 Anatomy; that in the former science, we have comparatively few parts to describe, (calyx, corolla, stamen, pistil, pericarp, seed, &c.): while each of these parts is susceptible of many forms, for describing which with precision many terms must be provided: in Comparative Anatomy, on the other hand, the skeletons of many animals are to be regarded as modifications of a common type, and the terms by which their parts are described are to mark this community of type. The terminology of Botany has for its object description; the language of Comparative Anatomy must have for its basis morphology. Accordingly, Mr. Owen’s terms are selected so as to express the analogies, or, as he calls them, the homologies of the skeleton; those parts of the skeleton being termed homologues, which have the same place in the general type, and therefore ought to have the same name.
Yet this distinction of the basis of botanical and anatomical terminology is not to be pushed too far. The primary definitions in botany, as given by Linnæus, are founded on morphological views; and imply a general type of the structure of plants. These are his definitions (Phil. Bot. Art. 86).
Calyx, Cortex plantæ in Fructificatione præsens.
Corolla, Liber plantæ in Flora præsens.
Stamen, Viscus pro Pollinis præparatione.
Pistillum, Viscus fructui adherens pro Pollinis receptione.
Pericarpium, Viscus gravidum seminibus, quæ matura dimittit.
But in what follows these leading definitions, the terms are descriptive merely. Now in Comparative Anatomy, an important object of terms is, to express what part of the type each bone represents—to answer the question, what is it? before we proceed, assuming that we know what it is, to describe its shape. The difficulty of this previous question is very great when we come to the bones of the head; and when we assume, as morphology leads us to do, that the heads of all vertebrated animals, including even fishes, are composed of homologous bones. And, as I have already 351 said in the History (b. xvii. c. 7), speaking of Animal Morphology, the best physiologists are now agreed that the heads of vertebrates may be resolved into a series of vertebræ, homologically repeated and modified in different animals. This doctrine has been gradually making its way among anatomists, through a great variety of views respecting details; and hence, with great discrepancies in the language by which it has been expressed. Mr. Owen has proposed a complete series of terms for the bones of the head of all vertebrates; and these names are supported by reasons which are full of interest and instruction to the physiologist, on account of the comprehensive and precise knowledge of comparative osteology which they involve; but they are also, as I have said, interesting and instructive to us, as exemplifying the reasons which may be given for the adoption of words in scientific language. The reasons thus given agree with several of the aphorisms which I have laid down, and may perhaps suggest a few others. Mr. Owen has done me the great honour to quote with approval some of these aphorisms. The terms which he has proposed belong, as I have already said, to the Terminology, not to the Nomenclature of Zoology. In the latter subject, the Nomenclature (the names of species) the binary nomenclature established by Linnæus remains, in its principle, unshaken, simple and sufficient.