biensis, for instance, conveys no botanical information, and even misleads, when the same fragments are known to be found in Dorsetshire; while the designations Brownii, Jonesi, and Robinsoni (after men totally unknown to science) are simply worse than ridiculous. In dealing with imperfect and partially legible fragments no detriment could arise to the science by the discoverer retaining them unnamed till the detection of more perfect specimens, while there would be a positive gain to the student in not having to learn to-day what he may be called upon to unlearn before the lapse of another season. The vanity of being first in the field, of claiming priority of discovery, overrules, however, in many minds this wise caution; and not till scientific societies, as a body, set themselves in opposition to such a practice, can any improvement be looked for. But the technicalising of imperfect fragments is a minor evil compared with that of founding new species upon the slightest variation in form which age, conditions of soil, and climate can readily account for. Mere temporary and gradational phases of a plant are thus erected into specific distinctions; the labour of acquisition is increased; and many are deterred from the study simply by the array of names they have to encounter. Nor is the matter one whit better when we come to examine the practice in Palæontology Proper, or Fossil Zoology. The slightest variation in form is sufficient for a Smithii or Brownii being added to the list of species; while a greater variation is almost certain to lead to the establishment of another genus. Three forms of palatal teeth, for instance, are discovered in the Carboniferous system, and each receives a generic name; a few years of research pass by, and all three forms are found to belong to the same mouth! Two forms of fin-spines are detected in the Old Red Sandstone, and each receives generic distinction, even from an Agassiz; several years pass by, and a single fish is discovered possessing the two spines-one form for the pectorals and another for the dorsals! Scales with slightly different ornamentation are dignified with specific titles, and yet, when a perfect fish is secured, these scales are found to be merely variations on different parts of the same body! Such are the evils that arise from giving names to imperfect fragments; such is the worthlessness of hundreds of provisional designations, arising from the vain desire of being foremost in the race of priority. Taken by themselves, a few specimens of certain shells may appear to warrant a specific designation; but when a large assemblage of these shells has been brought together, the graduation of one form into another is so imperceptible, and the whole so similar to some established species, that the propriety of regarding them merely as varieties of that species can no longer be questioned. And it is simply for want of this careful and sufficiently extensive comparison that species are manufactured out of the most trifling differences, and that our fossil lists are encumbered with factitious and questionable distinctions. Age, sex, individual condition, and the like, make wonderful differences in living species, and yet such circumstances are seldom taken into account in the discrimination of those that are fossil. Commenting on this indiscriminate manufacture of "species" in Zoology, Professor Carpenter condemns it in the following emphatic terms, which are equally applicable to the field of Paleontology : "There are still too many who are far too ready to establish new species, upon variations of the most trivial character, without taking the pains to establish the value of these differences, by ascertaining their constancy through an extensive series of individuals— thus, as was well said by the late Prince of Canino, 'describing specimens instead of species,' and burdening science not only with a useless nomenclature, but with a mass of false assertions. It should be borne in mind that every one who thus makes a bad species is really doing a serious detriment to science; whilst every one who proves the identity of species previously accounted distinct, is contributing towards its simplification, and is therefore one of its truest benefactors." And even when the species is good, the name has often no reference whatever to the distinction, being altogether meaningless and absurd. Such terms as striatus, reticulatus, falcatus, and the like, have a meaning, and convey the distinction to which they refer; but Cornubicus or Jamesii has no significance at all, or if it has, it is a misleading one, as the organism may be found in other districts than Cornwall, and James may have had no hand whatever in the discovery of the species to which he stands godfather. In deprecating this system, or rather non-system, of indiscriminate species-making and meaningless nomenclature, we are by no means arguing against the value of scientific names and technical distinctions. New objects must have new names, and new facts new phrases, to express their relations. We are not even undervaluing the advantage of provisional terms and temporary distinctions. What we object to is the absurdity of conferring specific names on minute, and, it may be, mere accidental variations; of giving generic and specific names to obscure fragments till further discovery has revealed fuller and clearer information; of applying meaningless instead of descriptive and significant terms; and of thus cumbering the science with names * *This fashion of fanciful and meaningless terms is invading not only the realms of science, but those of ordinary topography, and this to such a degree that the modern names of country-seats, suburban villas, and town streets convey no notion whatever either of their character or origin —thus ignoring all external features and confounding all historical associations. The old Celtic and Saxon names of our hills and valleys, instead of realities. No student who values the purity and progress of his special science can possibly defend the practice at present followed; and the best way in which he can assist in counteracting its tendency is by carefully and resolutely adopting for his own discoveries a strictly descriptive nomenclature, and by as cautiously refraining from conferring generic appellations on obscure fragments, which the discoveries of another day may show to belong to something already determined. It is long ago since Cuvier, in speaking of the living world, avowed his belief "that the difference between two species is sometimes entirely inappreciable from the skeleton, and that even genera cannot always be distinguished by osteological characters;" what temerity, therefore, on the part of ordinary observers, to attempt the erection, not only of species, but of genera, on the scattered and mutilated fragments of bygone epochs, and on their creation of these genera to found the boldest and most revolutionary of cosmical speculations! our castles and country-seats, our towns and streets, had something to recommend them, and render them descriptive and memorable; modern nomenclature, on the other hand, is often as absurd and meaningless as the priggish inanity that invents it. SCENERY-ITS CHARACTERISTICS AND CAUSES. As the surface- configuration of the earth is infinitely varied, so the causes of that diversity, whether internal or external, must vary in a corresponding degree. Variety of aspect and contrast involve, in fact, dissimilarity of producing agency-complexity in the one being but the natural result of diversity in the other. Here we have plains that are spoken of as tame and monotonous, there fens and moors described as waste and dreary; here hills and dales regarded as gentle and pleasing, there crags and glens as picturesque and romantic; here splintery cliffs and precipitous gorges viewed as wild and awful, and there mountain-peaks and shaggy ravines invested with the attributes of grandeur and sublimity. This surface-diversity or scenery, so long the theme of the poet and painter, is not less the subject of the geographer and geologist. The former take it as they find it, and describe it in words, or transfer it to their canvas; the latter, equally appreciating its variety, attempt to arrive at its intimate nature and producing causes. In this, as in other efforts to interpret phenomena, diversity of opinion is naturally expected; and hence, at the present time, scenery is one of the moot points of Geology-some attributing it mainly to external agencies |