VICTOR E. SHKLFOKD. 



It was my hope t<> -ccure guiding principles to be used in the 

 interpretation of the tiger beetle data, in the fields where zoology 

 a tril uited only chaos. In 1907 an appointment requiring 

 that I give- instruction in natural history alone, UMiig the field 

 method, -erved to stimulate my efforts in this direction in order 

 to find a basis for the organization of field and natural history 

 instruction. In 1908, I was compelled, quite against my will. 

 to drop experimental work for a time and have been left free 

 to pursue the inquiry to its logical endings. 



An early training in zoology which was of the strictest morpho- 

 logical type, caused me at the outset to share the doubts of 

 main biologists as to the value of ecological work. However, 

 because of the circumstances just referred to, I was able to 

 examine the work of plant ecologists with a large degree of 

 sympathy, which has grown as the inquiry and accompanying 

 investigations have progressed. It will be seen that we have 

 been investigating the question of the value and relations of organized 

 ecology to absorbing biological problems of today. It is the results 

 of this investigation that we are concerned in presenting here. 

 The zoological investigations which have accompanied the work 

 have been various and only the significant results will be pre- 

 sented. The investigations have been carried only far enough 

 to indicate the lines in which they may profitably be directed 

 further. 



The result of our general inquiry, while in the main gratifying, 

 is in some respects disappointing. \Ve had hoped to find intimate 

 relations between organizable ecology and the absorbing bio- 

 logical problems of the day, but everything points to the fact 

 that animal ecology must be organized independently first, and 

 related to other problems after organization has been attained. 

 I or this reason and for the sake of clearness, we- ha\e M -parated 

 ecology as sharply from other subjects as possible. 



It should be noted at the outset that the basis, in principle, 

 of modern ecology has been developed by botanists quite inde- 

 |n-ndently of other dubious of the subject of botany. Doubts 

 as to the \alne of plant ecology once existed among botanists, 

 but these have disappeared and CCO!M-\ ha> a recognition on a 

 level with evolution, morphology, and physiology. This is ot 



i mere-- 1 here, because llis|or\ often repeal- il-ell. 



