The most frequent form of survey is that carried on along the lines which most nearly approach individual and aggregate ecology. Most of such surveys give only slight attention to the _responsive relation_, or only to its most general aspects. Surveys of the usual character are of great importance, and with students of taxonomic training and interests only, this form of survey occurs very naturally. Most of the governmental and state surveys and museum expeditions are developed along these lines. The frequency with which such methods are used in surveys, which are expected to produce economic results, indicates that these methods are generally considered the most satisfactory. The exceptions to this rule are mainly surveys of fresh and salt waters, and are related in some way to aquatic resources. Except when detailed individual studies of certain species or some special subject has been made, the usual form of the reports of such surveys is the annotated list. It is rarely that even brief chapters discuss the groupings of the animals as they are found associated in nature. These statements show that, judging from the past, the methods currently used cannot be depended upon for a rapid and symmetrical development of ecology, or for the best development of ecological surveys. These must be developed in a more direct and deliberate manner, by carefully planned and executed ecological investigations. It is desirable also that ecological surveys should be conducted along some one of the three main avenues of approach, individual, aggregate, and associational, in order that the science may develop symmetrically. The following are some of the reasons which may be mentioned in favor of such surveys: As a record of the associations, their interrelations and responses to their environment--before they have become too much changed or exterminated. This is a duty to future naturalists and to future science. The animal remains in themselves are only a very incomplete record; their activities and environments are an essential part of the animals and should also be preserved. The study of original conditions is a simpler problem than after interference by man, but excessive modifications result in the simplicity due to annihilation and a corresponding imperfection of knowledge. The value of a knowledge of original conditions tends to increase with time, and will aid much in future interpretations when there is still more disturbance. Thus an important perspective may be developed which will aid in estimating relative values. At the present time the loss of records of original conditions is only beginning to be felt. The possibility of making certain records will vanish with each generation. It is not even desirable to _preserve all_, but it is evident that many ecological records should be preserved.