THE SCOPE AND IMPORT OF GENECOLOGY 



BY GÔTE rURESSON 



INSTITUTK OF GKNETICS, ÂKAHP, S\VKt)i:N 



THE iulvaiKc in the ticld ot ecology has mainly taken plaee along 

 two lines of research: the one has considered the individual or- 

 ganism as related to environment; the other has considered plant com- 

 munities, or vegetation, from the same point of view. The modern 

 terms autecology for the ecology of individuals or particular species, 

 and synecology for the ecology of communities would seem to cover 

 both lines of ecological inquiry. Leaving aside the question of syn- 

 ecology for the monient and concentrating our attention upon the func- 

 tions of autecology, we at once become aware of the twofold aspect 

 of this latter branch of study, viz. the ecology of the individual organism 

 as well as of the species. It is one of the purposes of this paper to 

 emphasize the distinction to be made between the two fields of incjuiry 

 contained in autecology and to point out the radically different nature 

 of the problems involved in the respective fields. 



The application of the fundamental idea of the distinction between 

 modifications and hereditary variations in the field of autecology intro- 

 duces a line of experimental study as yet almost totally neglected. 

 Hitherto autecology has confined itself to a study of the modifications 

 of organisms in response to different environmental factors, and the 

 question of the hereditary variation in relation to habitat has remained 

 experimentally almost unattacked. In fact, not only has the latter 

 question been neglected but autecology has been pursued as if here- 

 ditary diversity within the particular species dealt with did not exist. 

 It is clear that generalizations made from experiments with a limited 

 number of individuals of a certain species in order to explain the 

 behaviour and the distribution in nature of that species remain wholly 

 or partly doubtful as long as the question of the hereditary variation 

 within the species is left unconsidered. I have in a previous work 

 (TuREssoN, 1922 b) drawn attention to generalizations of this kind. In 

 rare cases mention is made in autecological works also of hereditary 

 variations within the species investigated, but the importance of such 

 variations for ecology has very seldom been realized. 



