My confusion continued the next day (July 15th) when I read the lead in another story (by the same writer) in the Toronto Star. This one started out, “
Unfortunately, an editorial on July 15th in the Toronto Star didn’t clear up my confusion — it actually added to it. Here’s the first line of it: “For most Ontarians, the vast boreal forest that blankets the province’s far north is little more than an abstraction.”
That makes me think (again) that a boreal forest is a type of forest. So, after that, I did what I should have done the first time I read about the boreal forest. I looked up boreal. Here’s how Merriam-webster.com defines boreal: 1: of, relating to, or located in northern regions (boreal waters) 2: of, relating to, or comprising the northern biotic area characterized especially by dominance of coniferous forests.
Given this definition, my view is that unless the “Northern Boreal” forest is a proper name for a region, it’s redundant to refer to it as that, and it’s also redundant to tell readers that the boreal forest blankets the province’s far north — where else would it be?