Beiblatt zu den Botanischen Jahrbüchern. Nr. 70. 3 
them are long, such as groupe de régions, type de végétation, série éco- 
logique de groupes d'association, groupe d'association. FranauLt would 
retain a long list of indigenous names of formations, tundra, taigamyrar, 
watten, llanos, carroscos, campos, pinhals, garigues, for the reason that 
they have no equivalents in French (or in any other language), forgetting 
evidently that these names merely designate particular types of principal 
formations found elsewhere. He has been consistent in the application of 
priority, though it seems that the reasons for making this rule retroactive 
hardly obtain in phytogeography as they did in taxonomy. The term 
formation, however, is supplanted by groupe d'association on the one hand 
and by association on the other, though the strict application of priority 
would necessitate its retention.  FrAnauLT's report was referred to a com- 
mission on nomenclature, which was given complete latitude in the matter, 
with instructions to report to the Vienna Botanical Congress in 1905. 
In a later paper’), Franaurr has made use of his terms for geogra- 
phieal divisions in sketching the vegetation of France, but he does not 
take up the vexed question of formational nomenclature. No fault can be 
found with the terms employed, région, domaine, district, sous-district, 
station, which are as good as any others, were they not in the vernacular. 
In proposing the following system of nomenclature for phytogeography, 
two principles have served as a basis. The first is that the division of 
the vegetation into formations must be founded upon the concept of habi- 
tats (environments), since each habitat and its corresponding formation are 
merely the physical and biological expressions of the same forces. Such 
a method is not only consistent, but it is logical and natural as well. 
What is only an apparent inconsistency arises from the fact that language 
has sometimes chosen to name the biological fact, as in the word forest, 
and sometimes the physical fact, as in cliff or beach, while in some words, 
such as meadow, both facts are represented. The second principle is that 
a name is of value only when its application is clear, and its interpretation 
definite. For this reason, Greek and Latin can alone be made use of in 
a scientific system. Just as taxonomy, from the time and conditions in 
which it developed, found its natural expression in Greek and Latin, so 
phytogeography must turn to these universal languages. Greek is to be 
preferred because of the perfection to which the composition of words 
has been carried in it, but Latin has many terms which are already in 
use, and many others which may well be used. For these reasons, it 
seems best that both languages should be employed, Greek when a new 
word is to be coined, Latin when a short simple term is desired. These 
principles, with others arising out of them, are embodied in the following 
rules of nomenclature, which are suggested as the basis for a system. 
4) Franautr, Cu., La Flore et La Vegetation de la France, 1904. 
a* 
