62
J . M. LAMBERT AND M. B . DALE
frequently equated solely with attempts to classify such communities
into a generalized scheme.
For the purpose of this communication, we shall again revert to the
wider meaning of the term; for reasons which will later be apparent
(see IIA), we prefer this to the use of “vegetation studies” to cover the
field with which we shall be dealing. Used in this unrestricted sense,
phytosociology now carries no a prior; assumptions as to the nature of
the interrelationships expected. Moreover, it allows us to include other
analytical as well as purely classificatory techniques, without any
primary assumption that the latter are those required.
c. THE FUNCTION OF STATISTICS I N PHYTOSOCIOLOGY
A criticism which has often been levelled at phytosociology is that
it is far too frequently concerned with a mere reordering of the data
into a more simplified form, irrespective of whether the results are
interpretable in a wider context. If such an ordering is all that is
required, i.e. to display the information or docket it for future reference,
then the only advantage of using statistical techniques is to enable the
phytosociologist to reject peripheral information on a uniform but predetermined basis. However, w_here phytosociological studies are regarded
primarily as a means of entry into more complex vegetational relationships involving the habitat as well, the hypothesis-generating function
of certain statistical methods becomes important. For instance, a
statistical system constructed on a plant/plant basis can provide some
insight into the internal structure of the population in terms of associations between the plants concerned; and if the assumption is made that
some relationship exists between the distribution of the plants and
features of the physical environment, the structure revealed may then
be used to postulate the nature of possible plantihabitat relationships.
The prime criterion for the use of statistics in any branch of study is
often believed to be that it makes the study more “objective” and hence
scientifically more respectable. It is true that the use of such methods
eliminates personal bias and produces reproducible results for a given
set of data analysed by a given method. However, in very complex
situations like those usually encountered in the field, the subjective
element must enter, in one guise or another, at almost every stage.
For instance, the nature of the data to be collected, the form of the
analysis, and the exact parameters to be used, are all subjective
decisions frequently made either on past experience or with some foreknowledge of the type of phenomena expected. Where practical considerations are overriding, however, the study may be objective in
the sense that decisions are often based on factors largely irrelevant to
the actual system under study. This introduces the concept of efficiency,
J . M. LAMBERT AND M. B . DALE
frequently equated solely with attempts to classify such communities
into a generalized scheme.
For the purpose of this communication, we shall again revert to the
wider meaning of the term; for reasons which will later be apparent
(see IIA), we prefer this to the use of “vegetation studies” to cover the
field with which we shall be dealing. Used in this unrestricted sense,
phytosociology now carries no a prior; assumptions as to the nature of
the interrelationships expected. Moreover, it allows us to include other
analytical as well as purely classificatory techniques, without any
primary assumption that the latter are those required.
c. THE FUNCTION OF STATISTICS I N PHYTOSOCIOLOGY
A criticism which has often been levelled at phytosociology is that
it is far too frequently concerned with a mere reordering of the data
into a more simplified form, irrespective of whether the results are
interpretable in a wider context. If such an ordering is all that is
required, i.e. to display the information or docket it for future reference,
then the only advantage of using statistical techniques is to enable the
phytosociologist to reject peripheral information on a uniform but predetermined basis. However, w_here phytosociological studies are regarded
primarily as a means of entry into more complex vegetational relationships involving the habitat as well, the hypothesis-generating function
of certain statistical methods becomes important. For instance, a
statistical system constructed on a plant/plant basis can provide some
insight into the internal structure of the population in terms of associations between the plants concerned; and if the assumption is made that
some relationship exists between the distribution of the plants and
features of the physical environment, the structure revealed may then
be used to postulate the nature of possible plantihabitat relationships.
The prime criterion for the use of statistics in any branch of study is
often believed to be that it makes the study more “objective” and hence
scientifically more respectable. It is true that the use of such methods
eliminates personal bias and produces reproducible results for a given
set of data analysed by a given method. However, in very complex
situations like those usually encountered in the field, the subjective
element must enter, in one guise or another, at almost every stage.
For instance, the nature of the data to be collected, the form of the
analysis, and the exact parameters to be used, are all subjective
decisions frequently made either on past experience or with some foreknowledge of the type of phenomena expected. Where practical considerations are overriding, however, the study may be objective in
the sense that decisions are often based on factors largely irrelevant to
the actual system under study. This introduces the concept of efficiency,