1 82 FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY-SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT. 
whose plants are not listed. One serious drawback of the scheme 
is that no account is taken of relative abundance; but there seems to 
be no easy way to remedy that. The figures must be regarded as 
only approximate, for they are liable to be modified by additional 
field work and the inclusion of rarer species. If woody plants and 
herbs were handled separately no doubt some important differences 
between them would be brought out, but that seemed a little too 
much of an undertaking for the present. 
Coefficients of community for n vegetation types of the Ocala area. 
1. Lakes, ponds 
prairies 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
1.8 
1.6 
11.2 
0.7 
1.1 
2.4 
~0.8 
5.2 
11.0 
2.5 
2. Scrub thickets 
48.1 
13.3 
7.0 
10.7 
20.0 
6.4 
8.1 
1.4 
1.7 
3 . Scrub 
9.0 
6.7 
8.3 
20 7 
5.0 
6.3 
1.4 
1.6 
4 . Palmetto flatwoods 
10.7 
12.0 
5.4 
3.2 
3.7 
2.0 
2.2 
5 . High pine land 
14.7 
4.8 
3.3 
3.1 
06 
0.7 
6. Red oak woods 
21.3 
22.5 
9.4 
4.4 
9.0 
7 . Sandy hammocks 
32.6 
23.6 
5.0 
15.4 
8. High hammocks 
29.7 
7.2 
26.5 
9 . Low hammocks 
23.9 
38.7 
10 . Swamps 
23.7 
11. Short-leaf pine and palmetto 
It will be noticed that the coefficient is generally greatest be¬ 
tween consecutive types (which indicates that the sequence here 
adopted is a logical one), but in no case exceeds 50% (which indi¬ 
cates that the distinctions are fairly well founded*). It happens 
that every two types in the table have at least one species in common, 
and that the coefficient falls below 1 % in only four cases, and those 
are where upland and lowland vegetation are contrasted. 
If we add together the 11 coefficients for each type we will be 
led to the conclusion that No. 1 is the most distinct of all, No. 5 
next, and No. 4 next, while No. 9 is the least distinct, No. 7 next, 
and No; 8 next. The significance of this is not quite clear, but it is 
*It should be borne in mind, however, that floristic distinctness is not essen¬ 
tial for the discrimination of vegetation types, for two types might contain ex¬ 
actly the same species, but in such different proportions as to appear very dif¬ 
ferent. (See 6th Annual Report, p. 175, footnote.) And on the other hand it 
might be possible to select small areas in the same vegetation type which have 
few or no species in common. 
