430 Forestry Quarterly. 



before engaging in its mathematical processes. Silvics embraces, 

 so to speak, the problems and runs into the higher miathematics. 



I must protest against the statement that I have said forest- 

 ecology stops the moment practical considerations enter and silvics 

 begins only when practical considerations are in hand. I stated 

 that "the point of view of silvics is different (from that of forest- 

 ecolog}') because of its different object. The forest-ecology of 

 the botanists is concerned with adding to the sum total of botan- 

 ical knowledge. Silvics of the foresters, on the other hand, is 

 concerned with ... all forest investigations . . . that bear in any 

 way upon the practical questions of forest production." The 

 well known fact that botanical research has the high purpose of 

 adding to the sum total of botanical knowledge while forestry re- 

 search has the high purpose of furthering the interests of forest 

 production as their main objects is obviously not exclusive of 

 practical activity on the part of botanists, nor entirely, I hope, 

 of activity purely for the sake of knowledge on the part of for- 

 esters. 



A botanist does, of course, distinguish herbaceous plants in the 

 field by certain "ear marks." In other words he uses a method 

 somewhat similar to that used by foresters with trees and shrubs. 

 Botanists, however, have not as yet developed their "ear marks" 

 for herbs into the definite form that foresters have developed 

 theirs for trees and shrubs. It is a noteworthy fact that leading 

 taxonomists among botanists protest frequently to-day against the 

 unnecessarily difficult taxonomic schemes given in many manuals 

 schemes derived mainly from herbarium specimens rather than 

 fresh material, and often involving characters that appear in na- 

 ture only several months apart. The "complete taxonomic 

 scheme" of botany mentioned in my paper involves, it is well 

 known, the recognition of the different orders found along the 

 three main lines of advancement from primitive to highly 

 specialized characters, with the various families belonging to 

 each, the connecting thread to-day being genetic relationship. 

 Further, the characters there considered are largely floral. As 

 much of this as the prospective forestry student needs belongs, I 

 think, to his botanical study proper. Systematic dendrology, as 

 my paper states, does not deal with most of this material but 

 only with such characteristics as are of service in field identifi- 



