The ecotype concept (Turesson, 1922) is a population concept, and by definition an ecotype is an intraspecific product of environmental selection arising as a result of genotypic response to a particular habitat. Accordingly, before a population qualifies for ecotype status, a relationship must be demonstrated between its heredity and prevailing factors of its habitat. Since primary object of early genecological studies was to demonstrate existence of ecotypic differences, it was only natural comparisons made then were usually between population samples collected from distinctly different habitats. The results of such experiments showed validity of ecotype concept, though as subsequent investigations bear witness they tended to exaggerate discreteness of ecotypic units. Bocher (1949), for instance, points out difficulties involved in fitting complicated data obtained from studies on Prunella vulgaris into discrete ecotypes. He appreciates convenience of being able to single out most representative character combination in a given locality and give it a name. But in event the reader must not be left in doubt name does not correspond to a well-defined unit. It is probable, he thinks, that many of plants which Turesson has cultivated will, on closer study, prove to behave like Plantago maritima or Prunella vulgaris, where variation recorded is largely clinal. Current genecological work, indeed, suggests emphasis is increasingly being transferred from attempts to delimit ecotypes to study of trends of ecotypic differentiation. This transfer of emphasis from conceptual ecotype unit to demonstrable reality of ecotypic differentiation in no way vitiates Turesson's concept. It has been custom, for obvious practical reasons, to apply term ecotype to a population if any part of its heredity is demonstrably related to a particular feature of its environment. However, if an ecotype were to be established on basis of a particular genotype-environmental relationship same population might on basis of other criteria again qualify for ecotype status with perhaps new boundaries. This is one of reasons which make it so difficult to present a *comprehensive picture of ecotypic differentiation in terms of territorially exclusive ecotypes. Moreover, because characteristics which are most ecotypically responsive are so often quantitative ones, demonstrable ecotypic differentiation related to a particular environmental gradient is comparatively seldom discontinuously partitioned into discrete ecotypes, but, instead, it is commonly found to be arranged more or less continuously. In other words, ecotypic differentiation is commonly ecoclinal. The alternative to recording a few of most discretely differentiated habitat populations as ecotypes is, therefore, to record whatever trends of ecotypic differentiation investigator is able to detect by techniques he employs. At present time, even real significance of Turesson's concept is in danger of being masked by loose way term ecotype is sometimes used. Carter (1951), for example, refers to small populations which show geographical phenotypic differences resulting as responses to direct action of environment, as ecotypes, and says (p. 141) They are most noticeable in plants, but may occur in animals ... Variation of this type is non-genetic. Commonly, however, term ecotype is