140 
REVIEW 
The definition of what constitutes a formation does not remain constant 
throughout the article. On page 254 the sentence “ though the trees and 
grasses, since they occupy the same habitat, together constitute one 
formation...” seems clearly to indicate that difference in habitat constitutes 
difference between formations, yet we find the Grasslands of the High and 
Low Veld (very different climatically and edaphically) put together as one, 
“The Veld,” formation. In this case therefore the growth form seems to be 
taken as the basis for a formation. On the other hand, the woodland of the 
High Veld and' Low Veld ranks as two separate formations, the Bush 
formation and the Thorn Veld formation, though why the two woodlands 
should be raised to formational rank, which is denied to the corresponding 
grasslands, is not apparent. 
To have kept to a climatic and edaphic basis for the formation throughout 
would have seemed the simplest course, placing the grassland and woodland 
of High Veld in one formation and those of Low Veld in another. This 
procedure would have been in accordance with the historical concept of the 
formation, favoured by British ecologists, for Professor Bews indicates that 
much of the existing grassland is retrogressive scrub and that retrogression 
to grassland is still going on. 
The difficulty in establishing a High Veld and Low Veld formation seems 
to have been that the vegetation of the Vleis, streams and rivers of the two 
regions shows little or no difference, but the establishment of a common Vlei 
formation in the midst of the two Veld formations does not seem so serious 
a source of confusion, as the mode of classification actually adopted. 
E. M. M. Hume. 
