Abstract
MY gentle touch has started an avalanche indeed, but I remain unmoved. Sir Archdall Reid asks (NATURE, June 2, p. 425): “Is not all systematic zoology and botany founded on this kind of classification?”—a classification based on definite, concrete facts of structure, in which there is “little or nothing” based on causes, on antecedents and consequents, or on hypothesis. The answer is in the negative. May I illustrate briefly some kinds of interpretation that a systematist has to employ?
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
BATHER, F. Biological Terminology. Nature 107, 489–490 (1921). https://doi.org/10.1038/107489a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/107489a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
