428 Forestry Quarterly 



mainly along applied lines. Since forest ecology came into being 

 first, it would be an anachronism to say that forest ecology devel- 

 oped as an offshoot of plant ecology. 



The parallelism of these sciences is evident when we consider 

 that plant ecology deals with plants as a whole and forest ecology 

 only with trees. From the time of Schouw and Grisebach to that 

 of Schimper and Warming, a span of nearly 100 years, the two 

 sciences often worked in the same fields, even though they looked 

 upon the same problems from different viewpoints. In the deter- 

 mination of light values, in the study of plant succession, and in 

 many other phases of ecology foresters and botanists have worked 

 together. It is significant that Mayr was for more than 25 years 

 associated with the eminent forest botanist Robert Hartig both 

 in botanical and in forestry investigative work. There can be no 

 doubt that a mutual benefit was derived from this association. 

 Certainly Mayr must have gathered considerable inspiration for 

 his Waldhau. The coincidence of these two sciences at the present 

 time is evident when we consider that both are inquiring into the 

 causes of vegetation. It is significant that modern plant ecology 

 and silviculture based upon natural laws are developing simul- 

 taneously. This fact is especially emphasized when we note that 

 Warming's Ecology of Plants and Mayr's Waldhau auf naturgesetz- 

 licher Grundlage two epoch-making works both appeared in 1909 

 and both are concerned with the investigation of the relation between 

 the plant and its habitat. 



While plant ecology and forest ecology developed independently 

 (the former along purely scientific lines, the latter along applied 

 lines), we are witnessing today a period in which they are becoming 

 mutually helpftd. Modern plant ecology will have the tendency to 

 make forest ecology a more orderly science. Forest ecology has never 

 been properly organized and systematized. Plant ecology long 

 ago recognized the plant formation as its fundamental unit ; why 

 should not the same unit (called by foresters a forest type) be 

 recognized as the fundamental unit of forest ecology? Also the 

 recently established sub-divisions of plant ecology, namely, aute- 

 cology , and synecology , apply just as well to forest ecology ? Plant 

 ecology vuill also make forest ecology broader in its scope and meaning. 

 While they have developed to a certain extent independently, I 

 see no reason why they should continue to progress so. While 

 forest ecology will always be looked upon as one of the applied 



