25 ECOLOGY 



Stance than arc plants. Aristotle was A soil that is adorned by tall and 



a believer in a final, or formal, cause gleeful trees is not always a favorable 



for animal structnre-as we shonld say o[^c except, o course, or those trees 



1 vl ^ i. u ^ ^ ■ ^,1 n.oi- What tree, indeed, is taller than the far? 



now licrcdity-but he recogn./cd that ^.t what other plant could exist in the 



modifications occur in animal struc- ^.^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^.^^^.^^^^ p.^^^^,^^^ ^^ 



ture. He believed that animals so de- j^^,^,^^, p^Q^j^ ^f richness of soil. What is 



velop that they are suited to their sur- t]-,crc that enjoys a greater renoun than 



Foundings. For example: the pastures of Germany? But they are 



a mere thin layer of earth with sand un- 



An eye the animal must have of derneath. 

 necessity (for the fundamental idea of 



the animal is of such a kind), but it will jj^^.^ •,. ^^^ ^^ g^g^.^^ ^^^^ ecologists 

 have an eye of a particular kind, of ne- ^^^ recognize the native plants on 

 cessity m another sense. ^ p^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^ "indicators" of agri- 

 He believed that there is a purpose ^"^tural possibilities. But the person 

 back of all development, although he employing such indicators for land 

 does not maintain that it is the pur- classification, as now practiced m the 

 pose or desire of the individual animal United States, must needs have a much 

 which causes a particular kind of de- n]ore complete knowledge of native 

 velopment. Aristotle was evidently a P^^n^s than Plmy had. 

 believer in teleology, so would hardly «««*** 

 feel at home with modern animal 



ecologists. And he did not have the ^ „ . , ^ , j r» 



idea of natural selection, which holds Following the Greek and Roman 



that environment eliminates those in- Penod writers on zoology' and botany 



dividual plants or animals which are show little interest in ecolop'. Their 



unfit for the particular environment work is a description of mdividual kinds 



m which they are placed. o/ aiiimals and plants, with little 



Pliny, in his Natural History, thought of environmental relations, 



which is, in its best parts, a rewriting Foundation facts for the development 



of Theophrastus, Aristotle, Cato, and of ecology were lacking 



others, offers much material of simple And yet the teachings of Theo- 



ecological sort, as when he considers phrastus were not entirclv forgotten; a 



the purchase of farm land, or the rela- glimpse of ecological thinking now and 



tion of crops to soil and climate, or of then may be obtained, as when Al- 



insect pests to garden plants. Quoting, bertus Magnus refers to the plants of 



indirectly from Cato, he says: streamsides and marshes, or discusses 



the quality of different kinds of wood 



Do not be too eager in buying a farm, and the usefulness of these different 



A bad bargain is always a cause for re- woods for building purposes depending 



pentance. Those who are about to pur- ^^^^ ^^^ conditions under which they 



chase land should have an eye to the yj^^ ^^^-^^ ^^ transmutation, i.e., 



water the roads and the neighborhood ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ 



. . . Where land is good the people will , ». . ,.^. ^ . ,-, ■ 



1 11 A-^- ^A ^r.A h„n}¥h., under special conditions of the cnviron- 



look well-conditioned and healthy. t^ . , , , , , t- ,^ r> i 



mcnt, was widely held. Even the Greek 



Continuing our survey of Pliny for philosophers, who should have known 



ecological material, certain facts come better, gave mild assent to it; be it said, 



to light which only recently have been however, that Theophrastus in men- 



generally recognized as of consequence: tioning change of wheat into rye on 



