FOREST TYPES. 343 



return. In short, it is the indicator value of the community, which the forester, 

 consciously or subconsciously, has constantly in mind when he is defining or 

 classifying forest types. As a consequence, the major objectives of forester 

 and ecologist are the same in the study of vegetation, and the system of 

 classification and of indicators which the latter estabhshes as the result of 

 successional and quantitative studies should be equally serviceable for the 

 former. 



Forest sites. To the ecologist it seems that much confusion has resulted 

 among foresters from the fact that they have constantly used the indicator 

 method, but usually without a clear recognition of this or of its connotations. 

 As a consequence, there is frequent doubt as to the meaning of the terms type 

 and site. The causes for this confusion have been discussed by a number of 

 foresters. Dana (1913: 58) points out: 



'The use of the term 'physical type' in this sense is practically the same 

 as the generally accepted meaning of 'locality' or 'site.' This is defined in 

 Forest Service Bulletin 61 as 'An area, considered with reference to forest- 

 producing power. The factors of the locality are the altitude, soil, slope, 

 aspect, and other local conditions influencing forest growth. Locality class, 

 or quality of locaUty, includes all localities with similar forest-producing 

 power.' Such a classification is undoubtedly a useful one for many purposes, 

 but it would be better to drop the misleading term 'type' and to substitute 

 for it either of the approved terms 'locality' or 'site.' In any event, it should 

 be clearly imderstood that the term refers to the area and not directly to the 

 stand. " 



Moore (1913:75) says: 



"The main point at issue becomes, therefore, one of terminology: Shall we 

 call the environment or physical factors a 'forest type,' or shall we apply the 

 term 'forest type' only to the tree growth? It is evident that we require a 

 separate term for each. Common usage in this country has generally made 

 the term 'forest type' apply to the forest cover. It would therefore simplify 

 matters, I believe, if some other term such as 'site' were recognized as applying 

 to physical factors, while the term 'forest type' is reserved for the forest cover." 



The argument for a clear-cut distinction between forest type and site 

 receives strong support from a comparison of the statements of Moore and 

 Zon. The former (l. c, 75) states: 



"Mr. Zon, in his article 'Quality Classes and Forest Types,* uses the term 

 'forest type' to indicate environment or the sum of all physical factors; used 

 in this sense, the 'forest type' becomes synonjonous with site quality." 



Zon (1913: 102), however, merely says: 



"An attempt to use such site classes for forest types as an expression of the 

 physical conditions of growth must necessarily lead to confusion." 



Zon's further conclusions as to forest types and site classes have a direct 

 bearing on this question : 



"The division of a forest into stands having different average heights or 

 site classes is perfectly justifiable as long as the end sought is purely an 

 economic one. Site classes based upon the average height of the stand can 



