362 SEARS 



responsive to other findings of science, that this inference is valid, let alone 

 understood or appreciated. 



For the most direct and explicit contribution of botany to conservation we 

 must turn to the science of ecology, with its vigorous developments beginning 

 around the turn of the century. Conservation is an application of ecology in 

 the same sense that engineering represents applied physical and mathematical 

 science. And while the ecology in question is general, embracing man, other 

 animals, and plants, there are both historical and practical reasons for 

 emphasizing the importance of plant ecology in this connection. 



The pioneer work of Warming and Schimper was caught up and carried 

 on by two institutions little hampered by set patterns of botanical interest — - 

 Chicago and Nebraska (Sears, 1956). Pound and Clements' Phytogeography 

 of Nebraska with its strong floristic accent appeared in 1898, Cowles' 

 Physiographic Ecology of Chicago and Vicinity in 1901. In 1901 also at the 

 Denver meeting of the Botanical Society of America, a youthful Clements 

 presented 5 (out of a total of 12 papers on the program) reports to that 

 austere and select body, then numbering 31 members and 17 associates, in- 

 cluding Clements. One dealt with the Plant Formations of the Rocky Moun- 

 tains, others with the Fundamental Phenomena of Vegetation, the Physical 

 Bases of Ecology, a System of Nomenclature for Ecology, and the Application 

 of Ecology in Taxonomy.^ 



If one may indulge in a bit of psychological reconstruction, based upon 

 many small clues and reasonable probabilities, the net effect of this pioneering 

 exercise was less than it should have been. At any rate, during the next six 

 years there were a few papers, mostly by Clements and Cowles, but little sign 

 of general interest until the Chicago meeting of 1907, when Ecology was well 

 represented. At the Baltimore meeting in 1908 when the Society numbered 

 96 members and 48 associates, there was a symposium on Ecology. Its in- 

 tellectual quality should have been enough to bring Ecology out of the dog- 

 house, but this was not to be. As a consequence of continuing rebuffs during 

 the next seven years, the ecologists felt obliged to organize their own Ecological 

 Society of America at the Columbus meeting in 1915. This I have been assured 

 (for I find no written record) they did reluctantly, after their efforts to 

 estabHsh a section within the society had proved fruitless. 



The move was probably inevitable, however. At the time it permitted the 

 plant ecologists to join forces with the nascent group of animal ecologists. 

 The combination later viewed the rising interest in human ecology with some 

 of the same coolness that it had itself experienced. It also encountered some 



^ I am indebted to Professor Transeau for the reminder that E. W. Hilgard de- 

 serves an early and honored place in American ecology. Certainly his magnificent 

 work on the relation of soils to native vegetation justifies this opinion, regardless 

 of labels. Hilgard was a product of the great European universities. Both his teaching 

 and research displayed broad mastery of the sciences. 



