TRANSACTIONS OF WAGNER 
VEGETATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA 
186 
The actual number of species belonging to each growth form in the two 
Florida districts is: 
REGION S | E. | РЬ. | Ch, | H. G. HH. Th. 
JJ'11 E ee na a — — 77... ee 
Miami BI re nr me 2 23 178 128 221 48 48 145 
%%% (m ent 6 11 168 104 99 I 15 108 
The total number of phanerophytes in the Miami flora exceeds the total 
number on the Florida keys by ten, but as percentages of the total growth 
forms, the phanerophytes in the flora of the Florida keys are preponderant. 
If we contrast these percentages with those of the growth forms of the pine- 
barren region of New Jersey, we discover that the phanerophytes of that region 
form 14.1 per cent., and the chamephytes то per cent., while the hemicrypto- 
phytes form 38 per cent. of the whole number of growth forms enumerated. 
Physiognomically, the phanerophytes are dominant in the pine-barren region 
of New Jersey, and they form the most striking part of the vegetation, while 
in South Florida the undergrowth beneath the dominant trees belonging to 
the phanerophytic and chamephytic groups, while specifically more numerous, 
is from the standpoint of actual numbers less in evidence and of secondary 
importance. One specimen of a single species counts as much in fixing its 
standing in the determination of the percentages of growth forms as 100,000 
individuals of a species count. We have, therefore, this fact brought into 
prominence that the growth forms of a region may be present in greater per- 
centages of specific forms, but yet numerically, as to the actual number of 
individuals of those types, of relatively little importance. In the pine-barren 
region of New Jersey, we have a less number of species of phanerophytes (66) 
than in the Miami region (178) and the Florida keys (168), but yet, numer- 
ically, there are more phanerophytic individuals than in the two districts at 
the southern end of the Florida peninsula. While Raunkiær's spectra give 
valuable information as to the percentages of growth forms, they do not give 
any idea of the physiognomy of the vegetation, which must be expressed in 
other ways. As an approximation to this estimate, we use the descriptive 
terms of relative abundance: dominant, subdominant, abundant, occasional, 
rare, very rare, local, locally abundant, local but occasional.* 
* For the significance of these terms consult Tansley, A. G.: An Ecological Study of a Cam- 
bridgeshire Woodland. Journal Linnæan Society, Botany, xl: 339-384, Jan., 1912. 
— — — 
