NOMENCLATUEE OF UNITS. 141 



Scir-pus, which are the dominant plants of the two associations; and the range 

 of habitat and of form of these two genera is considerable. Nor do such terms 

 as 'magna-Caricetum' and 'parvo-Caricetum' (Schroter, 1904:49) overcome 

 this difficulty in the least. In the British Isles alone there are, in this forma- 

 tion, associations of Calluna vulgaris, of Empetrum nigrum, of Eriophorum 

 angustiSolium, of E. vaginatum, of Molinia coeruka, of Vacdnium myrtillus, 

 and others. Add to these the various other associations known and described 

 on the continent of Europe alone, and the designation of the formation by 

 Clements' plan reaches Brobdingnagian proportions." 



While no such sesquipedalian terms were contemplated in the plan men- 

 tioned, the criticism loses its weight in the case of the developmental classifica- 

 tion of formation as climax units. Each formation would rarely contain more 

 than two or three associations, and it is merely a question of a compromise 

 between securing the necessary brevity and the desired definiteness. Where 

 the generic names of the chief dominant of each association are short, two or 

 three such names might be used with maximum definiteness and little incon- 

 venience. As a rule, however, two names alone would be permitted by the 

 demands for brevity, and often one would be better still. Once in use, Boute- 

 louor-poion, Stipa-poion, or Picea-hylion would be no more indefinite than 

 Solanaceae, Rosaceae, etc. It seems such a designation of the formation would 

 have a distinct advantage over the proposal to designate the various climatic 

 formations as o-Oxodion, |3-0xodion, etc. (Moss, 1910:44). In the case of 

 mixed communities, definiteness demands the use of the two chief dominants, 

 whether they are consociations as in an ecotone or consocies as in a mictium. 



Hult (1881 : 22) was the first to propose and use a system of nomenclature 

 for formations. He considered the use of names based upon the habitat to 

 be impossible, for the reason that the same formation [community] might occur 

 in quite different habitats. Hence he found it necessary to propose an 

 entirely new nomenclature, modeled after Kemer, in which formations were 

 named from their characteristic vegetation-forms. As he understood it, the 

 pine formations contained three such forms, the Pinus-iorm, Myrtus-ionn, and 

 Cladina-iorm, and hence were termed "pine and lichen formations," Pineta 

 cladinosa. Hult's evident intention was to form a binomial nomenclature 

 based upon that of taxonomy, an attempt which has much to commend it 

 theoretically. Practically it results too often in a lack of definiteness and 

 brevity^ produces an endless series pf names, and fails completely to indicate 

 developmental relations. Such names as Pineta cladinosa, Betuleta muscosa, 

 and Aireta geraniosa are attractive, but Geranieta graminifera, Aireta herbida 

 and Aireta pura are ambiguous and confusing, while Sphagneta schoenolagurosa, 

 Juncelleta polytrichosa, Pseudojunceta amblystegiosa, and Grandicaricela 

 amblystegiosa are quite too long and indefinite. 



Cajander (1903 : 23) has proposed to designate associations (consociations) 

 more exactly by using the genitive of the species with the generic name in 

 -etum, e. g., Salicetum Salicis viminalis, though in use this becomes Salicetum 

 viminalis, Alnetum incanae, etc. Moss (1910 : 41) adopts this plan, and Warm- 

 ing (1909 : 145) apparently approves it also. As a consequence, it may well be 

 generally adopted in all cases where such definiteness is desired. In the actual 

 consideration of a consocies or other unit it would seem unnecessary and incon- 

 venient to repeat the full form, e. g., oxodion Eriophoreti vaginati, Aristidae 



