=4. The plant formation.= The corner-stone of ecology was laid by Grisebach in 1838 by his recognition of the plant formation as the fundamental feature of vegetation. Earlier writers, notably Linné (1737, 1751), Biberg (1749), and Hedenberg (1754), had perceived this relation more or less clearly, but failed to reduce it to a definite guiding principle. This was a natural result of the dominance of descriptive botany in the 18th century, by virtue of which all other lines of botanical inquiry languished. This tendency had spent itself to a certain degree by the opening of the 19th century, and both plant distribution and plant physiology began to take form. The stimulus given the former by Humboldt (1807) turned the attention of botanists more critically to the study of vegetation as a field in itself, and the growing feeling for structure in the latter led to Grisebach’s concept of the formation, which he defined as follows: “I would term a group of plants which bears a definite physiognomic character, such as a meadow, a forest, etc., a phytogeographic formation. The latter may be characterized by a single social species, by a complex of dominant species belonging to one family, or, finally, it may show an aggregate of species, which, though of various taxonomic character, have a common peculiarity; thus, the alpine meadows consist almost exclusively of perennial herbs.” The acceptance of the formation as the unit of vegetation took place slowly, but as a result of the work of Kerner (1863), Grisebach (1872), Engler (1879), Hult (1881, 1885), Goeze (1882), Beck (1884), Drude (1889), and Warming (1889), this point of view came to be more and more prevalent. It was not, however, until the appearance of three works of great importance, Warming (1895), Drude (1896), and Schimper (1898), that the concept of the formation became generally predominant. With the growing recognition of the formation during the last decade has appeared the inevitable tendency to stereotype the subject of ecology in this stage. The present need, in consequence, is to show very clearly that the idea of the formation is a fundamental, and not an ultimate one, and that the proper superstructure of ecology is yet to be reared upon this as the foundation.