THE PROBLEMS OF ECOLOGY 199 



'Tegloiis 'present to the ecologist his only opportunity. His observa- 

 tions can be indefinitely extended, not merely in breadth, but in 

 depth. To the taxonomist there seems to be a serious defect in many 

 ecological publications, a lack of accuracy arising from the author's 

 imperfect knowledge of systematic botany. Too often the ecologist, 

 in characterizing his plant formations and plant societies, is contented 

 with mentioning a few of the more obvious, showy-flowered, and 

 easily determined spermatophytes. It is rarely, indeed, that he states 

 fully and correctly the numerous species of goldenrods, willows, 

 rushes, sedges, and grasses, to say nothing of cryptogams, which 

 form such a large and important part of the flora he is studying. 

 These groups are for him inconveniently technical, and he is all too 

 apt to sum them up in a sort of generic way by such vague expres- 

 sions as " Solidago species," "several undetermined Junci," "many 

 sedges," etc. When the taxonomist protests against this superficial 

 treatment of important groups, the ecologist replies in a superior 

 manner that he cares little for such nearly related species, that they 

 intergrade,and are from his more philosophic point of view relatively 

 insignificant; that, in fact, he believes the systematist to have split 

 up species in these more difficult groups far beyond what is natural 

 or practical. Several prolific ecologists have intimated that they care 

 but little about the details of post-Grayan classification. They men- 

 tion as single species such perfectly demonstrated and undeniable 

 complexes as Antennaria plantaginifolia, Viola cucullata, Potentilla 

 canadensis, and Taraxacum ofjicinale. 



What makes this matter the more unfortunate is that the ecologist 

 is rarely a collector in the taxonomic sense. His lists are often made 

 in the field, and are subject to no check or control by means of ade- 

 quate and carefully preserved specimens. This course seems all the 

 more venturesome at a time when the systematist is becoming daily 

 more reluctant to make field determinations, being fully aware how 

 untrustworthy and valueless such identifications are, and how im- 

 possible it is for any memory to retain the details of recent specific 

 segregation. Under these circumstances, how can the ecologist hope 

 to make accurate field-lists, or how, without specimens preserved as 

 vouchers, can he expect that his catalogues will be intelligible, not 

 to say convincing, to other botanists? 



In making these strictures on certain all too common ecological 

 methods I do so by no means in the spirit of adverse criticism, but 

 merely with the hope of showing more clearly the great problems 

 still ahead of the ecologist. For a writer on plant relations who con- 

 tents himself with mentioning Antennaria plantaginifolia as though 

 it were a single species closes his eyes to a whole vista of most inter- 

 esting observations along his own line. The taxonomist has proved 

 that, instead of being a single species, this is a highly polymorphous 



