Forest Type: A Defense of Loose Usage. 427 



distinct and at the same time so closely associated within the 

 bounds of a single science is, of course, absurd. Furthermore, 

 its specific application to anyone of them invalidates it for 

 either of the others; but all of the ideas must find expression, 

 and all involve, in one sense or another, the notion of "type." 

 The solution seems, therefore, to lie in the substitution for the 

 word "forest" of some more specific term, designating the 

 category to which the type belongs. 



This has already been done. The three terms cover type, 

 phys-ieal type, and management type have recently been pro- 

 posed, to denote what are in effect the three ideas above men- 

 tioned. Of course, however, only one — cover type — actually re- 

 fers to the existing forest itself. The others relate to (i) 

 locality, and not existing forest; (2) future forest, and not 

 existing forest. It seems clear, therefore, that the expression 

 "forest type" has one and only one logical application, and that 

 in the sense of a "characteristic style or kind" of existing forest. 

 The basis on which the distinction between forest types should 

 rest can not be constant any more than if the words "style" or 

 "kind" were substituted for "type." The term is extremely 

 elastic. It varies with the purpose of the author, but in spite 

 of this, it can not mislead, since we expect nothing more from 

 the word "type" than is specifically provided by the author's 

 definition. A "hardwood type" may be, by this definition, noth- 

 ing more than a kind of forest consisting of hardwoods, but it 

 may also, of course, represent a definite relation of forest and 

 environmental factors if the author makes clear that he is giving 

 it this meaning ; similarly, a birch-beech-maple type may be merely 

 a kind of forest consisting of birch, beech and maple, or it 

 may be a climax forest for definite physical conditions. Ex- 

 cept for the different degrees of intensity which individual authors 

 may, by definition, give the term, the meaning of "forest type," as 

 of "kind" or "sort" can not be limited without a sacrifice of con- 

 sistency and precision. 



In papers dealing with forestry from the ecological standpoint, 

 it would often be better, therefore, to employ the terms used in 

 ecology. Among ecologists, a forest considered with relation to 

 its total environmental factors would be called a "formation," and 

 as this term is without an equivalent in American forestry there 



