44 
C. E. Moss. 
wholly or almost wholly in floristic composition. For example, he 
places in his “ formation ” of “ succulent steppe ” both the bushland 
in Morocco composed of species of Euphorbia and the communities 
of plants which occur on the plateaux of Texas and Mexico, even 
though in the latter locality “are found species absent from the old 
World, including those of Agave, Yucca, and, above all, Cactaceae ” 
(Warming, 1909 : 279). 
It is not proposed to offer here a list of such formational 
and associational designations, as nothing can be more certain than 
that an acceptable language is never evolved on such a ready-made 
plan. Even the binomial system of Linnaeus was not altogether a 
novelty; and it would probably have been rejected by the botanists 
of the day, had it been propounded prior to the Tournefortian plan 
which it superseded. 
I suggest, however, that ecological writers and phytogeographers, 
when describing particular formations and associations, should 
suggest such universal names for them in addition to the more 
colloquial names which are at present in use. The technical or 
universal name would not supersede the common or colloquial 
name; just as Beilis perennis is still known as the daisy, and just 
as trichlormethane is still known as chloroform. The need of a 
universal terminology in the designation of formations and associa¬ 
tions has, however, become acute; and it seems to me that, if 
prejudice he put on one side, the basis of such a common tongue may 
be found in the plan here outlined. If a universal scheme be wholly 
rejected, phytogeographers must remain content with their present 
inchoate terminology. 
The objection that such names as I have suggested are clumsy 
is of no more weight than the similar objection which might be 
urged (and indeed frequently is urged by non-specialists) against 
similar terms used by systematic biologists and by chemists; and 
the grea value of the latter terms is beyond argument. 
Groups of Formations. 
It is obvious that allied formations may be arranged into still 
more comprehensive classes. Every phytogeographical mono¬ 
grapher, in fact, has arranged his formations in some order; but 
very few have claimed for these higher groups the value of natural 
divisions. For example, the majority of such authors have arranged 
