86 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



fashion as to lessen the fire danger." It declares that "the production 

 of large-sized timber is too long an undertaking with too great hazards 

 and too low a rate of return to attract private capital in adequate 

 amount." It advocates a forest survey and land classification; public 

 purchase of cut-over lands by National and State governments in 

 co-operation, and also more vigorous extension of Federal co-operation 

 with the States in fire prevention ; fair forest taxation laws ; a very 

 large program of forest planting; nurseries and working plans and 

 other means of aiding reforesting operations, especially for smaller 

 land holders ; and a definite policy in operating State-owned lands. 

 It is also admitted that some paper and pulp concerns might practice 

 forestry on their own lands. 



With this attitude and program we can certainly not find any fault. 

 It expresses all that we have contended for as practicable means for 

 carrying out a national forest policy. What we need now are definitely 

 drawn acts of legislation. 



Some trouble of minor character seems to have arisen from the use 

 of the term "woodlot" to designate the small parcel of land devoted to 

 tree growth on a farm. At least the U. S. Forest Service lately sent 

 out an inquiry asking for opinions as to what term to substitute, sug- 

 gesting at the same time the terms "woodland" and "woods." Some 

 sixteen foresters replied, and, without very cogent reasoning, seemed 

 to come to a general agreement in favor of discarding "woodlot" and 

 accepting the two terms suggested without distinction. 



We cannot agree that the substitution is a happy one from a linguistic 

 point of view. There are three ideas that are to be expressed in the 

 term: wooden condition; small extent; attachment to a farm. "Farm 

 woodlot" really expressed these ideas perfectly; "lot" denoting a par- 

 rel of land of limited area, as a city house lot. The only or main 

 objection to the use of "woodlot" seems to be that, outside of New 

 England, the word is not current. That, in our opinion, only enhances 

 its quality as a term. To overcome personal objections, moreover, 

 "lot" may be left out and "farmwoods" would still convey the three 

 ideas. If the size of the lot is such as to warrant it, "farm forest" may 

 be substituted. "Woodland" to us conveys the idea of large extent, 

 and is of such generic character that it is hardly fitting to use it as a 

 species name. In inventing terms we must never forget the object. 

 In this case we want to express special economic as well as silvicultural 

 •conditions which attach to the small parcel as a species of woodland. 



B. E. F. 



