Anyone with objections to creating a new category called "Tundra and steppe" already?
No disagreement - just a review for clarification. We have (at least) 4 words for vaguely similar landscapes - Grassland, Tundra, Steppe and Savanna - All lack trees - but differ somewhat in "floral content", latitude and geogaphic/cultural location. Are we putting all 4 into the same "category"
I have picked up a few definitions from the Web
a. "Steppe (a grassland) to tundra (mosses and shrubs growing in waterlogged soils) is a regime shift that can occur in cold terrestrial ecosystems. Tundra and steppe regime shift is typically found where permafrost occurs. Steppe and tundra are primarily found in the Arctic, north of the tree line,"
b. "A steppe is a particular sub-type of grassland. Steppe grassland are found on nearly every continent, with the exceptions of Australia and Antarctica. They are drier and colder than other grasslands. Steppes lack humidity because they are far from the ocean and near mountains"
c. "Savannas, sometimes called "tropical grasslands," generally lie between a tropical rainforest and a desert. As such, they are warmer than steppes"
d. "The most important difference between a steppe and a savanna is where it is located. Savannas lie closer to the equator than steppes and, thus, are warmer than steppes. Being closer to the rainforest means that savannas have two major seasons: a hot, wet summer and a marginally cooler, but much drier winter."
e. "There are five major types of biomes: aquatic, grassland, forest, desert, and tundra, though some of these biomes can be further divided into more specific categories, such as freshwater, marine, savanna, tropical rainforest, temperate rainforest, and taiga."
Ther last one seems significant as it differentiates "Tundra" from "Grassland". That is of course no reason for us to have to split them into different categories but it raises the Q! I wonder if some of our "problems" derive from not adopting existing "top down" categorisations?