196 ECOLOGY 



On the other hand, it has seemed desirable to some of the more strenu- 

 ous, especially in America, to make up an extensive and highly elab- 

 orated vocabulary. 



Neither of these practices should be hastily condemned. The for- 

 mer method of expression, even if seemingly less precise and erudite, 

 has the great advantage of immediate clearness. It is businesslike, 

 practical, and free from any suggestion of affectation or pedantry. 

 But on the other hand, in favor of such an elaborate terminology as 

 that suggested by Professor Clements, it may be forcibly urged that 

 a well-chosen technical term, even for an obscure conception, not 

 only makes for brevity, but does much to fix and clarify the idea. It 

 gives a convenient handle to a thought which may be otherwise diffi- 

 cult to grasp and awkward to employ. It may be further argued that 

 most branches of science are considerably incumbered by a faulty 

 and often misleading nomenclature of casual and unsymmetrical 

 growth, by no means ideal, yet too firmly fixed to permit of reform. 

 Is it not, therefore, desirable that ecology, a new branch of science, 

 should be supplied at once with an adequate and consistent termin- 

 ology, and thereby be spared many wordy wranglings and abortive 

 nomenclature reforms which must inevitably result from a laissez 

 faire policy in this matter? It cannot be denied that this reasoning 

 has weight. Surely there is no systematist who does not regret the 

 lack of convention in this regard among early writers upon his own 

 subject. 



The first great problem of ecologists is, therefore, to establish an 

 adequate, expressive, and logical language of their subject, to es- 

 tablish, I repeat, not merely to invent such a terminology. If effective 

 uniformity in methods of expression can be accomplished, it will well 

 repay prolonged effort and do much to give precision as well as dig- 

 nity to the subject. In just this matter of nomenclature it may be 

 thought that the systematist is in a poor position to offer advice, but 

 surely he may be permitted on the score of long and trying experi- 

 ence to voice some cautions. 



It has been suggested that ecological terms should be chosen by 

 priority. This idea recalls the advice which a great art critic is said 

 to have given when asked what step should next be taken in develop- 

 ing one of our municipal art galleries. His unexpected counsel was to 

 burn it up. The principle of priority might not so completely destroy 

 the fine arts of ecology, but it would inevitably singe and blacken 

 them. Priority is only barely tolerable in taxonomy. No system- 

 atist determines his names by it absolutely, and the most annoying 

 disagreements have arisen from varying efforts to restrain its ill 

 effects. Were the principle of priority of expression to be adopted 

 in ecology, many well-selected and now current terms of relatively 

 recent origin would have to give place to the vaguer, poorly defined 



