Thus, while it seems to be less popular with the profession than the others mentioned, the writer has obtained at least as satisfactory results with the Stanley plate as with the others, and consequently now uses it exclusively, since it is cheaper. The one important point is to make a final choice only after personal experience, and then to always use plates of the same brand, and preferably of the same rate of speed. =238. The use of the camera.= To the ecologist, objects to be photographed fall into two categories, viz., those that move, and those that do not move. For practical purposes, areas sufficiently distant to render the movement imperceptible belong to the latter, as well as those, such as rock lichens, many fungi, etc., which can not be stirred by ordinary winds. The treatment accorded the two is essentially different. A fundamental rule of ecological photography is that detail must receive the first emphasis. The ecological view should be a picture as well as a map, however, but when one must be sacrificed, artistic effect must yield to clearness, and accuracy, i. e., technically speaking, contrast must give way to detail. Leaving apart the necessity of securing a sharp focus, which holds for all work, detail or definition depends directly upon the aperture of the diaphragm. Detail is increased by decreasing the size of the aperture. This in turn increases the length of time necessary for a proper exposure, and consequently the danger that the plant will be moved in the midst of the exposure. When the movement is negligible, the invariable rule should be to reduce the aperture to its smallest size, and to expose for a corresponding time. In all cases where the plants are close enough to show even a slight blurring on account of the action of the wind, the time of exposure must be reduced, in the hope that a short period of quiet will suffice for it. This reduction in time must be compensated by increasing the aperture of the diaphragm, and hence the amount of light which strikes the plate. The proper balance between the two is a matter of considerable nicety. It depends much upon the vagaries of the wind, and can readily be determined only after considerable experience. Although regions naturally differ somewhat in the nature of their winds, much experience in prairie and mountain regions warrants the primary rule that views of vegetation and plants subject to movement are not to be attempted on windy or cloudy days when it can possibly be avoided. Even on reconnaissance, a poor picture is no better than none at all, while in resident work a time will come sooner or later which will permit the making of a view satisfactory in all respects. There may be occasional instances when one is rewarded for keeping the camera trained on a particular spot for hours, and for wasting several plates in the hope that still moments will prove to be of the requisite duration. As a regular procedure, however, this has nothing to commend it.