Ecology. 25 
held sway before the axe, fire and the plough began their work of destruction 
and regeneration, ecological problems would be limited to the regenerative 
process, and field work could but advance somewhat on the lines along which 
the agricultural specialist and forester are now proceeding. 
We happen, however, to retain sufficient remnants of the original vegeta- 
tion and fauna to stimulate the desire to understand what their natural 
relations were before the present-day disturbing influences fell upon them, 
and in these we possess an inheritance rich in scientific prospect, which 
should not be left to be buried under the inevitable encroachment of the 
utilitarian and the pioneer principles of civilisation. 
But it may be argued that many of our scientists are ever occupied in 
studying the distribution of the British flora and fauna. Have we not county 
lists of distribution dealing with the major divisions of our species? Have 
we not first-rate text-books with accurate descriptions of the species .and 
their habitats? Have we not, further, the results of research in the 
laboratory and on experimental plots? This is all true and greatly to the 
credit of the workers in the various departments, and no one more than the 
field ecologist should value the works of the physiologist and systematist, and 
~ the county floras and faunas. 
The writer, however, in common with other ecologists, feels that some- 
thing further is needed to unravel the network of natural relationships in the 
field, the synecology as additional to the autecology, and it is with the hope 
of stimulating study in this direction that the present article is written. 
The old method of recording distribution by counties and vice-counties, in 
spite of its admitted usefulness, needs reinforcing by a more studied attempt 
at a true ecological distribution. The county-list method gave no adequate 
idea of the original distribution of plant associations, and endemic plants and 
colonists received almost equal recognition through its columns. One 
county-list might be mainly constructed from natural associations, and a 
second from plantations, hedgerows and cultivated ground. 
The county-list method gave, in fact, no true idea of the present distribu- 
tion. A species of plant, mollusc, or insect might occur only at one spot in 
one county, and be widely distributed in another, and yet both counties 
would be equally recognised. The truth, of course, is that counties are 
absolutely artificial boundaries for any type of natural association, and as 
indices of distribution will always be of comparatively little value for 
scientific purposes. What about the comparison of counties that are all 
cultivated with others all moorland, midland counties with maritime ones, 
mountainous counties and lowlands, counties without lakes with those dotted 
all over with them ? 
