Page:Hardwicke's Science-Gossip - Volume 1.pdf/89



HEN our good correspondents, in the simplicity of their hearts, inquire of us what these terms mean, and how they originated, they little think what a courageous face they call upon us to present, or how they challenge us to tread on some one's dearly beloved corns, in any venture to reply.

Looking at the words themselves, they are very good words in their proper places, very plain, and very significant; therefore, it is only to some novel application, forced or contorted, or it may be "cant" acceptation of the Queen's English, that such querists refer. If we are to credit the historian (satirist?) there was once a court and a country in which two factions raged. One party held that on entering a temple the right foot should be first placed over the threshold, the other that the left foot should be so employed. A new minister, or vizier, was appointed. Public curiosity was at its height when, on the day of installation into his high office, he should enter the temple. Will he place the right or the left foot first? was the universal inquiry. The hour and the man came, and the temple was entered, but neither the right nor the left foot party exulted. On arriving at the threshold the new minister placed his two heels firmly side by side, and thus leaped over the difficulty and the threshold together.

Wise or foolish in its origin or perpetuation, we will not stay to ask: certain naturalists are honoured with the title of Splitters, whilst others are denominated Lumpers, as if really there was a great fundamental difference between them. Popular creations in natural history are generally monsters; impossible beings such as sphinxes, centaurs, and unicorns. So "Lumpers" are regarded as a faction whose sole delight is in lumping together under one name all analogous forms, and constituting a species out of six or seven existing ones; whilst "Splitters," on the other hand, are an equally industrious faction whose occupation and amusement consist in hunting out the most trivial differences and distinctions, giving them a factitious value, and out of one species constituting twenty new ones. We need not add that such a character is unmerited by either. It may be true that amongst naturalists there is a difference of opinion as to what shall constitute or be the limits of a " species." If by any patent method "what is a species" could be definitely and satisfactorily settled, Lumpers and Splitters would be embalmed by the act with the mummies of ancient Egypt. All recognise, but with different values, the variations amongst individuals; a group of individuals agreeing amongst themselves, in some departure from a given type, with more or less of permanence, is to one man, or one section of men, worthy of regard as a variety, whilst others esteem the differences to be such as merit specfic distinction, to be relatively permanent, and to be entitled to retain a distinct name, and take rank as a species. We think that were a young student to ask our advice, we should recommend him to imitate the most inveterate splitter that he could imaging, because such a course would, of necessity, compel him to a rigid scrutiny and comparison, which might thenceforth grow into a habit of close observation. On the other hand, we should feel disposed to caution the matured naturalist against new species, recommending him to cultivate a "conservative" spirit, and to regard all allied forms as the same species until he recognized unmistakable evidences that they could not have diverged from each other, to that extent, under any ordinary conditions to which animal or plant life might be submitted.

The whole community is not agreed as to what is happiness, or what is honour, or what is taste; and it is somewhat invidious to apply terms intended to be anything but complimentary to those who differ in their interpretation of what is a species. We do not think that science suffers by including in her ranks men of extreme opinions on such an "open question." Certainly if one reviews the labours of the other carefully and candidly, or a third looks on and balances the evidence on both sides, there is more hope for the truth than if all were unanimous. To inquire of us, "What is the maximum speed of a cannon-ball?" is bad enough, but to ask us whether we belong to the high-heeled faction, or the low-heeled party is worse, and all the reply we can give is—Look at our boots and see!