FOREST TYPE: A DEFENSE OF LOOSE USAGE. 

 By E. H. Frothingham. 



Almost from the beginning of forestry in America the ex- 

 pression "forest type" has been used by writers in this field, 

 each using it in his own way, and apparently to his own and 

 his readers' perfect satisfaction. This happy state of affairs was 

 not of long life. Questions as to the precise meaning of the 

 term were raised by cautious critics, and strenuous attempts 

 were made to fix a standard definition for "forest type." In 

 consequence, those who have been addicted to the lavish use of 

 the word can hardly avoid a feeling of uncertainty, as of con- 

 fidence misplaced. 



In the "Symposium"* recently conducted by the Society of 

 American Foresters the attempt was apparently made to clear 

 up the existing confusion as to the meaning of "forest type," 

 and to arrive at some standard definition or definitions. What- 

 ever its object, the "Symposium" has- not clarified the situation; 

 it might, indeed, be said to have left "confusion worse con- 

 founded." When ideas clash, words are often to blame. It 

 is possible, then, that a glance at the word "type" in its ordinary 

 usage will reveal the source of the trouble. 



Before proceeding, however, it would be well to review the 

 qualifications that a word must have for technical use. In his 

 comments on "Terms Used in Forestry and Logging,"* Dr. 

 Fernow has proposed a number of standards by which to test 

 the situation of technical terms. All of these apply to the case 

 in hand; but one in particular is of interest here: 



b. Words' which are current with well established 

 meanings should not be employed as terms in another 

 sense, especially where it is likely that ambiguity would 

 be introduced by the simultaneous use of the ordinary 

 sense and the term meaning. 



Are we not committing this very error when we borrow the 

 word "type" from recognized usage and impress it for service, 



♦Proceedings, Society of American Forresters, Vol. VIII, No. i, pp. 

 61-104. 

 ♦Forestry Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 255-268. 



