480 University of California Publications in Agricultural Sciences [Vol. 3 



7. Whether the soil survey should include more than a simple 

 classification of the soils or not, is an unsettled question. It is thought 

 hardly possible that in a soil survey the field man could handle all the 

 phases of an agricultural survey of an area, when his energies should 

 be fully employed in the classification of the soils. It is believed that 

 the place of the survey, in this country at least, is to handle the 

 classification of the soils, leaving the study of the remaining factors 

 largely to other specialists, who would use the soil survey as a basis. 44 

 But to make the soil maps of more general use for such work, they 

 must be more accurate. These maps never can become the basis of 

 other agricultural studies as long as many experiment station workers 

 ridicule them. Hence, the ultimate effort of the survey should be 

 toward better work, rather than covering a wide range of agricultural 

 studies. 



8. There is not the incentive to make as many separations of the 

 soils in the field, as the field man might think best, because frequently 

 the feeling of the editors is that there would be too many small bodies 

 of soil shown on the manuscript maps which would not warrant the 

 additional cost of publication. 



In conclusion, the Bureau of Soils' system has much to commend 

 it as a field method, and the resulting maps and classification are be- 

 lieved to be of distinct value. It is felt that a more general under- 

 standing of: (1) the limitations under which the maps, the earlier 

 ones especially, have been made; (2) the difficulties under which the 

 field work is at present carried on ; ( 3 ) the meaning of the correlation 

 of soils; and (4) the general policy of the Bureau of Soils would give 

 people more sympathy with their work. 



44Fippin, E. O., Proc. Amer. Soc. Agron., vol. 1 (1908), pp. 191-97. 



