428 Forestry Quarterly. 



is no reason why it should not be adopted. For use in a general 

 scheme of forest classification it would be most serviceable. 



Used to designate "locality" the term "forest type" is totally 

 inconsistent, as has been shown by Barrington Moore.* Mr. 

 Moore's point is that "physical factors are the cause of forest 

 types; hence can not be forest types' in themselves." 



The "aggregate of physical factors" is often implied in the 

 words "locality" or "site." Like "type," "locality" and "site" 

 should be used in harmony with their common usage, and their 

 intelligibility should not be endangered by special technical mean- 

 ings. To classify aggregates of physical factors, it would, of 

 course, be perfectly proper to use either "locality" or "site" in 

 connection with "type," just as "forest" is used with "type" to 

 designate kinds of forest. "Habitat" differs from these in that 

 it denotes all environmental factors, both physical and physiologi- 

 cal. Compounded either as "habitat type" or "locality type," 

 there would be no danger of confusion with "forest type," and 

 the terms would be self-explanatory. 



The above discussion has attempted to show that the 

 term "forest type" is exceedingly useful in silviculture and 

 forest description, so long as it is allowed perfect freedom; 

 that it is elastic and adaptable to modification by different writers 

 to serve any specific purpose, provided this is done in the sense 

 of "kind" or "style" of forest and not otherwise; but that as a 

 general expression in forest terminology any attempt to limit 

 its meaning to a restricted technical sense can result only in 

 ambiguity and destroy to that degree its usefulness. 



It may be said in dispute of these points that they amount 

 to a distinction without a difference. If the author may define 

 "type" to suit himself, why may not the profession at large agree 

 on a rigid definition? The answer to this, like the ancient re- 

 ceipt for rabbit stew, is "first catch your agreement." If perfect 

 agreement can be secured, the demands of intelligibility will, of 

 course, be satisfied. Until this is accomplished, however, the 

 word "type," in true proletarian fashion, will refuse to work at 

 the expense of liberty. 



^Proceedings, Soc. of Amer. Foresters, Vol. VIII, No. i, pp. 73-75- 



