1889.] Methods and Models in Geographic Teaching. 579 
in the forests. Why does he not say that there are tall vegetable 
growths, of irregular bifurcations, bearing green appendages at 
the attenuated extremities, these appendages being strongly scal- 
loped in outline, and so on. He also speaks of pines. Why not 
of other vegetable growths, with straight vertical axes, from which 
lateral arms spread out with some regularity, bearing long slender 
spicules on their minuter divisions. Instead of this, he says oak 
and pine. This is not because all oaks and all pines are of pre- 
cisely one pattern. Their variations are infinite, but for all that 
they vary only througn a moderate range, and can all be brought 
under typical forms. They may be young or old, large or small, 
well grown or deformed, living or dead, but they are still oaks or 
pines. How well it is, therefore, that they should be known by a 
definite term or name. How well it would be if geographic forms 
were equally well named ; and why should they not be ? The 
many plains that we have described do not differ more greatly 
among themselves than the oaks or the pines ; they deserve re- 
cognition as constituting a family, naturally related, not by inherit- 
tance from descent, as with the trees, but by similarity of the 
physical processes under which they have been developed. The 
natural association of their features deserves just such recognition 
as is implied by giving them names, distinctive and well defined. 
Do we not gain a better understanding of the earth's surface, 
of the primary object of geographical study, by thus looking at 
the meaning of land form, as well as at the form itself? Is not 
the possibility of accurate description greatly increased thereby, 
and does not the description when made carry more of the desired 
meaning than ordinary geographical narration, in which there is 
no definite standard recognized for comparison ? The reason of 
this is not far to seek. Our conception of the unknown is based 
on the conception of the known, either by likeness or contrast. 
Ordinary geographic description has not sufficient accuracy, be- 
cause its terms are vague ; they do not bring up to the mind the 
recollection of any well-defined type or standard. Plain, roll- 
ing countr>', hilly country, broken country, have no precise mean- 
ing; they "denote" but do not "connote." But when we 
examine a series of geographic forms related by community of 
