S2 NINETREN'lll HKPOKT, 



sigiiifuvuit. His .soil maj) oi' .Mississip])! .still .stands as one of the nu).st nsefnl 

 and ri-adily intflligibit- soil .studies that have been made. In it the fanner's 

 viewpoint dominates and no attempt is made to vindicate any particular scheme 

 of subdivision. In tlie State of Michigan, with its surface materials determined 

 largely by glaciation, I.everett** and Sherzer*'* have demonstrated the general 

 utility of origin as a guide to the classification of soils. 



4). Local names of soils should be retained wherever j)o.ssibIe. One of the 

 mo.st difficult things in the use of federal soil maps by the average person is 

 the recognition of the familiar soils which are concealed Ity their standard system 

 of nomenclature. The layman, for instance, is not heli)ed i)y giving to the .simple 

 soil types of the glacial prairies of northern Illinois such imported names as 

 C-arrington, Miami, I'"o.\ or Waukesha, which cannot possibly come into general 

 use. Different types of alluvial soils are designated as of the Huntington, Holly, 

 Wabash, and other series, although the localities from which these names are 

 derived may be hundreds of miles distant from jilaces where they are applied. 

 Kvidently alluvial soils are not identical over such areas, but only similar. Loess 

 is known as Knox silt loam. The attempt is made to ])roceed in classifying soils 

 with stratigrapliic precision where nature herself has drawn no hard and fast 

 lines. The placing of every soil of the United States into its own particular 

 pigeon-hole which is sujijiosed to be in definite alignment with every other 

 )iigeon-hole undertakes an iin]iossii)le. and what is more, an unjirofitable task. 



5). In many localities the value and utilization of land is far more 

 dependent upon slope tlian upon kind of soil. In some places it is 

 almost the onh' soil consideration of practical importance. Tlie rela- 

 tion of soil to slope is a negligible local factor only in smooth plains. 

 Present soil surveys neglect this important consideration almost entirely. 

 In moiuitainous areas the federal survey uses the designation "rough, 

 stony land" for non-agricidtural slopes, partially soil-covered. A few 

 soil maps are printed on topographic bases. No consistent attempt has 

 been made, however, to show steep slopes on soil maps. It is manifestly 

 impossible to hold up soil studies luitil toi^orgraphic maps are available. 

 Excessive slopes may be represented, however, without a topographic 

 base, by indicating through shading or similar means the slopes that 

 exceed a certain angle. There is probably not even for a single soil type 

 in an individual area a definite angle beyond which cultivation becomes 

 inadvisable. The manner of cultivation and kind of crop produced make 

 a sharp separation of agricultural from non-agricultural land impossible. 

 It is easy, however, to indicate on soil maps slopes on whicli the use of 

 the land becimies att'ected by their steepness, whether field cultivation 

 is prohibited or not. By supplying this most needed information regard- 

 ing slopes the value of many soil majjs would be increased several fold. 



The following illustrations of the iraj)ortance of sIojjc are taken from 

 observations in tlie Ozark Highland: "In general tlie most desirable 

 soil types are those which are associated as a rule with gentle slopes. 



**Map of Surface Korinations, Mich. Oeol. Sinv., iiui. 

 ***Genlnpry of Wavne County, Mirli. Cicol. Sinv. 



