92
J. M. LAMBERT AND M. B. DALE
of obtaining a comprehensive understanding of vegetational variation.
It is par excellence a reconnaissance method but is not limited to
reconnaisance. When the main framework is established, more detailed
investigations either of the community or of the habitat will reveal
finer relationships. This, not earlier, is the proper stage for the entry
of more strictly quantitative methods; for only at this stage will they
produce results which are commensurate to the work they involve.”
It is clear from this statement that Poore has primary survey particularly in mind and, ignoring for the moment the question of the use
of “quantitative methods”, we may thus look at the “method of
successive approximation” itself in connection with primary survey :
although Poore is specifically dealing with subjectively recognized
“communities” as his basic units, presumably his argument is applicable to any type of sample. Truly sequential methods suffer from one
major defect in that, strictly applied, the fist few assessments will be
either very vague or liable to gross error; in “wholistic” methods,
however, the range of variability over the population as a whole is
used to indicate the major points of interest as the basis for hypothesization. We maintain that the function of primary survey is to
establish an overall pattern in the area from which hypotheses can be
made as to relationships between plants and habitat. To be properly
objective in approach, the investigator should keep an open mind until
the data have been actually assembled and analysed. It is at this stage
that incidental observations may be used, but for interpretation rather
than assessment ; if such incidental observations are included haphazardly in the analysis itself, they may well bias the results and obscure
the more fundamental features.
It is true that the method of successive approximation in a very
general sense forms the basis of all scientific work; but this only applies
to the adjustment of hypotheses once they have been erected, not to
the establishment of hypotheses in the first instance. The construction
of any hypothesis needs a certain amount of initial information; and
the greater this initial information, the more stable any hypothesis is
likely to be. To form an initial hypothesig from the limited information
in a single site - or even a small number of sites - in an essentially
complex situation will lead a t best to vagueness and at worst to complete
error; and if subsequent observations are to be based in any sense upon
such an initial assessment, much effort may be spent in the correction
of such error. If, on the other hand, a certain amount of information
is obtained from sites distributed over the whole area under study before
any hypothesization is attempted, a firmer and more objective basis
can be established for decisions as to what is worth investigating
further.
J. M. LAMBERT AND M. B. DALE
of obtaining a comprehensive understanding of vegetational variation.
It is par excellence a reconnaissance method but is not limited to
reconnaisance. When the main framework is established, more detailed
investigations either of the community or of the habitat will reveal
finer relationships. This, not earlier, is the proper stage for the entry
of more strictly quantitative methods; for only at this stage will they
produce results which are commensurate to the work they involve.”
It is clear from this statement that Poore has primary survey particularly in mind and, ignoring for the moment the question of the use
of “quantitative methods”, we may thus look at the “method of
successive approximation” itself in connection with primary survey :
although Poore is specifically dealing with subjectively recognized
“communities” as his basic units, presumably his argument is applicable to any type of sample. Truly sequential methods suffer from one
major defect in that, strictly applied, the fist few assessments will be
either very vague or liable to gross error; in “wholistic” methods,
however, the range of variability over the population as a whole is
used to indicate the major points of interest as the basis for hypothesization. We maintain that the function of primary survey is to
establish an overall pattern in the area from which hypotheses can be
made as to relationships between plants and habitat. To be properly
objective in approach, the investigator should keep an open mind until
the data have been actually assembled and analysed. It is at this stage
that incidental observations may be used, but for interpretation rather
than assessment ; if such incidental observations are included haphazardly in the analysis itself, they may well bias the results and obscure
the more fundamental features.
It is true that the method of successive approximation in a very
general sense forms the basis of all scientific work; but this only applies
to the adjustment of hypotheses once they have been erected, not to
the establishment of hypotheses in the first instance. The construction
of any hypothesis needs a certain amount of initial information; and
the greater this initial information, the more stable any hypothesis is
likely to be. To form an initial hypothesig from the limited information
in a single site - or even a small number of sites - in an essentially
complex situation will lead a t best to vagueness and at worst to complete
error; and if subsequent observations are to be based in any sense upon
such an initial assessment, much effort may be spent in the correction
of such error. If, on the other hand, a certain amount of information
is obtained from sites distributed over the whole area under study before
any hypothesization is attempted, a firmer and more objective basis
can be established for decisions as to what is worth investigating
further.