2 Beiblatt zu den Botanischen Jahrbuchern. Nr. 70. 
of reducing the existing confusion and in coordinating the different portions 
of the subject. WarsurG and FramauLT have been the first to point out 
the need of system in phytogeographical nomenclature and to propose a 
remedy in part. FramauLr, in correspondence in 1899, had already seen 
the necessity for reform and was seeking the cooperation of other bota- 
nists. WarsurG, before the International Geographical Congress at Berlin 
in September 1899, pointed out in a vigorous article!) the many inconsistencies 
of phytogeographers, and laid the foundation of a real system by main- 
taining that Greek must be the basis, and that a definite and consistent 
principle must be employed in the nomenclature of formations. WARBURG’S 
leading argument is for »understandability« for the sake of the layman, 
but it applies with almost equal force to the case of the specialist. He 
considers the present time especially favorable for the elaboration of a 
thorough system for the following reasons. 
1. The nomenclature of formations is in a state of chaos. 
2. There are as yet no antagonistic schools which would render an 
agreement more difficult. 
3. The nomenclature of formations is constantly undergoing changes at 
the hands of phytogeographers, while the principles have nowhere 
been so firmly fixed as to make a common system difficult. 
4. Topographical phytogeography has progressed so far as to comprise 
the entire extent of conceivable names, so that few principal forma- 
tions will be added in the future, the increase being confined essen- 
tially to local types. 
9. Biological phytogeography is now so well developed that one cannot 
go astray in the choice of principles and of names. 
In accordance with WanBunG's proposals, a commission, of which the 
phytogeographers, Daun, ExGLEm, Gripner and Höck are members, was 
appointed to work out a simple system for the nomenclature of plant 
formations, and to report to the next International Geographical Congress. 
Warsurg has concerned himself entirely with suggestions for the 
nomenclature of formations.  FrAmauLT2) in his Projet de Nomenclature 
Phytogéographique, read before the International Botanical Congress at 
Paris in 1900, has scarcely touched this phase of the question, but has 
confined himself to the nomenclature of geographical and vegetational di- 
visions. With respect to a few essential features, FrAmauLT's work, pains- 
taking in the matter of priority and careful in execution, falls short of 
an international system. The terms are in the vernacular and many of 
1) Wanbrnc, O., Einführung einer gleichmäßigen Nomenclatur in der Pflanzen- 
geographie. Engl. Bot. Jahrb. XXIX. 3/4. Heft, Beibl. 66, p. 23, 1900. Read before the 
Botanical Society of America at the Denver Meeting, 1904. 
2) FLanautt, CH., Projet de Nomenclature Phytogéographique, 1900. English 
Translation in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club. XXVIII. p. 391, 4901. 
