Why we identify term ?humus? with ?soil organic matter? in pedology, if it directs us to wrong deductios?

To this day are terminological inaccuracies in subject publications, which direct us to wrong deductions. Therefore I devote oneself to literature search about soil organic matter, in my theses. Separately is split primary organic matter, levels of it´s lability and stable humus. I clarify the term stability and the difference in humus and primary soil organic matter. In this theses were effected analyses acid cambi soil in region Czech Budejovice and acid cambi soil in range of Bohemian Forest ? Kubova Huť. Was quantificated content HK, FK, Cox, humification degree SH, mineralized carbon Cminer, speed constant of biochemical oxidation C, fraction of labile organic substance Ccws, Chws, a CPM. I had compared this data with data, which we keep at one´s disposal from analyses effected twelve years ago. By comparing the real quality of humus in samples A (Kubova Huť) and B (České Budějovice) it stands to reason, that the B sample is superior in quality than sample A. Practice and media very often consider as ?humus? total content of Cox. If this thought should be the true, I would have to consider sample A (with content 9,3% Cox) as a soil with high level of humus and I would expect record returns in it. This conclusion would be real absurd. We can not talk about humus according to Cox content only. It is also necessary to take the primary claims (that the content Chws is an indicator of soil fertility) of some big men in field of pedology (for example Haynes) with a grain of salt. This applies only if soil micro ? edaphon is not decimated somehow. I came to the conclusions, that the final result of the analyses, effected by my thesis supervisor (Kolář) twelve years ago, on practically identical soil samples, are almost exactly the same with my results