42 
C. E. Moss. 
confusion with neuter generic and specific names, I here modify it 
to -ion, a termination which is now obsolete in taxonomic names. 
Tims modifying Clements’ terms, a Cremnion (xp y /zr<jc) denotes a 
cliff formation, an Eremion (spruros) a desert formation, an Oxodion 
(c£cu<$Yc), a sour hog formation, and so on. These terms Clements 
would make more definitive by the addition of the generic names of 
the plants which are dominant in the associations of the formations. 
Taking the Oxodion as an example, if this formation consisted only 
of two associations dominated respectively by Eriophorum vaginatum 
and Scirpus cccspitosus, the formation would, on Clements’ system, 
he denoted by the term “ Eriophorum-Scirpus-Oxodion.” This 
name would not, however, be really definitive; as no indication 
would be given of the species of Eriophorum or of Scirpus which 
are the dominant plants of the two associations ; and the range of 
habitat and of form in these two genera is considerable. Nor do such 
terms as “ magno-Caricetum ” and “ parvo-Caricetum ” (Schroter, 
1904: 49) overcome this difficulty in the least. Further, the Oxodion 
comprises not merely two associations but probably at least two 
dozen. In the British Isles alone, there are, in this formation, 
associations of Calluna vulgaris, of Empetrum nigrum, of Eriophorum 
angustifolium, of E. vaginatum , of Molinia ccernlea, of Vaccinium 
Myrtillus, and others. Add to these, the various other associations 
of this formation known and described on the continent of Europe 
alone, and the designation of the formation by Clements’ plan 
reaches Brobdingnagian proportions. 
Two other criticisms may be made of Clements’ scheme as it 
stands. Clements uses the same suffix for formations determined 
by habitat, and for formations classified by a totally different 
principle. Thus, the same suffix is used to denote open, initial, 
mixed, intermediate, ultimate, and closed formations; and the 
same suffix is used also to denote succession; yet these concepts 
are quite distinct from that of the formation as determined by 
habitat. However, these are matters capable of adjustment. 
There is, in my judgment, so much to be said on general 
grounds in favour of a universal language for the designation of 
formations that this point need not be argued; and, although the 
particular terms chosen by Clements may not be the best of all 
possible terms, it seems clear that many of them are eminently 
adapted for the purpose for which they were intended. The funda¬ 
mental weakness of Clements’ plan is the inclusion of generic names 
in the designations of formations; and this inclusion does not 
