2 forestry Quarterly. 



recent literature of the Forest Service is apparently in the way 

 of perpetuating the inadvertence. The term "working-section," 

 as used by Schlich, seems to have been dropped entirely. The 

 results are confusing and the situation would seem to be quite un- 

 necessary. 



Another illustration of an unhappy term is "reconnaissance." 

 When the word first came into use in the Forest Service it was 

 legitimate and accurate even though clumsy, foreign, long and 

 miserably easy to mis-spell. It signifies "preliminary survey" and 

 had been used in this sense for many years. But the character 

 of our forest surveys changed rapidly ; the use of the word was 

 continued. It now signifies "the linear and topographic survey 

 and mapping, estimating and reporting upon of forest lands." It 

 often involves all sorts of further details of logging, grazing, 

 alienations, soils, tree diseases and ecology. Much of this work 

 is to-day of the most intensive and accurate kind and involves a 

 very large degree of permanence. The inadequacy of the word 

 early became evident and we have "jack-rabbit surveys" for the 

 original "reconnaissance" and "intensive reconnaissance" for the 

 rest. But why "reconnaissance" at all? By the word we mean 

 "finding out what we have and where it is." That is "taking 

 stock." Taking stock is "inventory." Why not say inventory 

 when we mean just that? 



An objection against the use of "inventory" in this sense has 

 been urged, to the efifect that "it smacks too much of common 

 business." To some foresters this might not be an insuperable 

 objection. This might also be said of the objection that "it 

 would require the re-filing of pounds of correspondence and 

 another circular letter." 



The phrase "germinative force" has recently been introduced 

 to express a new measure of the rate of seed germination. The 

 need of some such phrase would seem to be evident; but is the 

 phrase wholly satisfactory? Certainly it is far from self-ex- 

 planatory and the use of the word "force" is actually misleading. 

 In order to use the new conception conveniently we need some 

 form of abbreviation or numerical expression. We have to ex- 

 press a per cent, of a per cent. What shall we call that? 



If the whole matter is not to be left to work itself out by in- 

 dividual preference, accident and whim, there should be some 

 representative professional body to pass upon all new terms and 



