PRESENT STATUS 7 
ods of ecological research. He must be familiar with the various points of 
attack in this field, and he must know the history of his subject thoroughly. 
Ecology affords the most striking example of the prevalent evil of Ameri- 
can botanical study, i. e., an indifference to, or an ignorance of the literature 
of the subject. The trouble is much aggravated here, however, by the 
breadth of the field, and the common assumption that a special training is 
unnecessary, if not, indeed, superfluous. Ignorance of the important eco- 
logical literature has been a most fertile source of crude and superficial 
studies, a condition that will become more apparent as these fields are 
worked again by carefully trained investigators. 
11. Descriptive ecology. The stage of development of the subject at the 
present time may be designated as descriptive ecology, for purposes of dis- 
cussion merely. This is concerned with the superficial description of vege- 
tation in general terms, and results from the fact that the development has 
begun on the surface, and has scarcely penetrated beneath it. The organic 
connection between ecology and floristic has produced an erroneous impres- 
sion as to the relative value of the two. Floristic has required little knowl- 
edge, and less preparation: it lends itself with insidious ease to chance jour- 
neys or to vacation trips, the fruits of which are found in vague descriptive 
articles, and in the multiplication of fictitious formations. While there is 
good reason that a record should be left of any serious reconnaissance, even 
though it be of a few weeks’ duration, the resulting lists and descriptive 
articles can have only the most rudimentary value, and it is absurd to regard 
them as ecological contributions at all. No statement admits of stronger 
emphasis, and there is none that should be taken more closely to heart by 
botanists who have supposed that they were doing ecological work. An 
almost equally fertile source of valueless work is the independent treatment 
of a restricted local area. The great readiness with which floristic lists 
and descriptions can be made has led many a botanist, working in a small 
area, or passing hurriedly through an extended region, to try his hand at 
formation making. From this practice have resulted scores of so-called 
formations, which are mere patches, consocies, or stages in development, 
or which have, indeed, no existence other than in the minds of their dis- 
coverers. The misleading definiteness which a photograph seems to give 
a bit of vegetation has been responsible for a surplus of photographic for- 
mations, which have no counterparts in nature. Indispensable as the photo- 
graph is to any systematic record of vegetation, its use up to the present 
time has but too often served to bring it into disrepute. There has been a 
marked tendency to apply the current methods of descriptive botany to 
vegetation, and to gegard every slightly different piece of the floral covering 
