68 



THE fflSTORY OF ECOLOGY 



restrial fonns, but the data were relatively 

 few, and, as we pointed out, there was little 

 attempt to see common denominators be- 

 tween the operations of one group and 

 those of another. Ecological succession also 

 furnished an important impetus for the 

 growth of synecology. It caused ecologists 

 to view groups from the long-time vantage 

 point of development and maturation in 

 fact, the early workers spoke of this ap- 

 proach as "genetic." 



Early in the century certain botanists and 

 zoologists began to conceive of bio tic group- 

 ings as integrated wholes. These they 

 designated "communities." The community 

 concept flourished from then on and, for 

 a time, was identified by some as syn- 

 onymous with ecology. It reached a mode 

 perhaps in the late twenties, when overen- 

 thusiastic workers began manufacturing 

 names for ecological phenomena at a rate 

 that exceeded knowledge and denied wis- 

 dom. Fortunately, this trend is abating, and 

 today community studies are assuming 

 saner proportions and are emerging as a 

 significant phase of ecology. It is clear that 

 they owe their origin to natural history and 

 early synecology of the type discussed. It 

 is equally clear that this phase of ecology 

 is bringing the botanist and zoologist into 

 closer cooperation. 



An interest in animal aggregations grew 

 up along with and slightly later than com- 

 munity studies. This interest dates far back 

 into ecological history as a descriptive 

 phase, but it did not attain more precise 

 treatment until the last two decades We 

 have shown already how this trend is cur- 

 rently merging into a general sociology. 



Our review of ecological history also un- 

 covers an urge toward quantification. At the 

 tvirn of the century research was essentially 

 descriptive and quahtative, with certain 

 notable exceptions particularly prevalent 

 among the marine biologists. Later publi- 

 cations became increasingly numerical. This 

 was true both for autecology and .gyne- 

 cology. The former introduced simple 

 algebra, geometry, and graphic techniques 

 borrowed largely from traditional phys- 

 iology and the physical sciences. The latter 

 took over the tool of statistical methods 

 already well developed and applied in other 

 areas by the biometrician. The adoption of 

 these methods in synecology not only im- 

 proved the rigor of the evidence, but 

 increased as well the ecologist's awareness 



of the essential nature of groups and their 

 properties. 



We attribute in part the rise of interest 

 in natural and experimental populations 

 during the third decade to this quantifica- 

 tion. Ecologists apparently reahzed that 

 many environmental phenomena can be 

 stated numerically. They then found out 

 that upon analysis these numbers yielded 

 conclusions more searching than those 

 based upon observation alone. Such meth- 

 odology naturally became part and parcel 

 of population research (see Thomas Park, 

 1946). 



Another trend worthy of emphasis is the 

 growth of apphed ecology. Early in the cen- 

 tury economic problems were largely those 

 of insect control and fisheries biology. These 

 problems were usually tackled in a restrict- 

 ed way. Later, as the economic zoologist 

 and the ecologist built bodies of knowledge, 

 we see the two turning to each other for 

 suggestions and advice. This now reaches a 

 point among the best modern workers 

 where data collected by one group are 

 directly usable by the other. This rap- 

 prochement is excellent. 



In mentioning applied ecology, it should 

 be recorded here that the activities now 

 known as "game management" and "wild- 

 hfe conservation" have appropriated, in in- 

 creasing measure and to their advantage, a 

 more circumscribed ecological flavor. These 

 fields were foreshadowed by the splendid 

 book entitled The Grouse in Health and in 

 Disease, edited by A. S. Leshe and A. E. 

 Shipley (1912), and, latterly, by such 

 volumes as Game Management by Aldo 

 Leopold (1933) and H. L. Stoddard's 

 The Bobwhite Quail: Its Habits, Preserva- 

 tion and Increase (1932). Then, too, the 

 work of agronomists, particularly those as- 

 sociated with pubhc agencies both here 

 and abroad, has yielded knowledge valu- 

 able not only for the ecologist (see chap. 

 16), but for the general problem of con- 

 servation as well. In fact, we are tempted 

 to remark that the ecologist, given the op- 

 portunity, has something to say, both 

 scientific and constructive, about the urgent 

 and gloomy problem of conservation and 

 about the establishment of "nature re- 

 serves." 



Although other trends could be pointed 

 out, enough has been said to give the read- 

 er the major features. In closing, we are 

 impressed once more by the fact that a 



