In the past, the Forest Service has used several different methods of measuring vegetation quantitatively in studying the relationship between herbaceous plant populations and range management (Forsling, '25). While these methods have provided data necessary for solution of the problems involved, they are limited in their application or else do not yield data sufficiently reliable for all purposes. The most widely used of these methods involves an ocular estimate of the density and composition of the vegetation on natural range units or on small research plots. Whereas this method is useful for determining major plant relationships, its susceptibility to error due to misjudgment by inexperienced or poorly trained observers and the limited amount of specific data obtained, make it objectionable from a research standpoint. Mere knowledge of the amount and character of the vegetation, although invaluable in making up a grazing plan for administrative use, is insufficient for an understanding of the exact nature and the causes of changes in plant population. The quadrat method is another widely used system for recording changes in the plant cover (Hill, '20; McGinnies, '30). This system is accurate and provides unlimited data, including a permanent record of the exact location and the size and shape of the basal cross-section of every perennial plant within a definite area. Nevertheless, it too has its shortcomings. Owing to the small size (usually 1 sq. m.) of each sample, it is necessary to establish four or more quadrats for any given condition in order to obtain a reliable record of the changes occurring under that condition. It is impossible generally to maintain a sufficient number of quadrats for each set of conditions involved because of the time required for charting. Hence quadrats are used chiefly to supplement more extensive methods of describing the vegetation. A third method typified by the list-quadrat system in which the individuals of each species occurring within a plot are carefully counted, has been used to some extent (Hanson and Ball, '28). While the resultant data indicate the composition of the vegetation, it does not show the quantity of vegetation on the ground in terms of density or volume. In other words, the method is highly satisfactory for qualitative analysis, but is limited for quantitative measurement to the comparison of areas on which the plant composition is similar and composed largely of single stalked species. It is not applicable to grasses or other turf-forming plants. Because of these deficiencies, the 573