No. 1, February. 1921] FORESTRY 17 



122. Garr, H. D., and George E. E'we. Hemlock bark (Tsuga canadensis) for pharma- 

 ceutical purposes. Jour. Amer. Pharm. Assoc. 9:567-573. S fig. 1920. — See Bot. Absts. 6, 

 Entry 819. 



123. Ginzberger, A. Zwei neue Standorte der gefeldert-rindigen Buche, Fagus silvatica 

 var. quercoides Pers., in Mittel Italien und Slavonien. [Two new site-localities of the grooved- 

 barked beech, Fagus silvatica, var. quercoides Pers., in central Italy and in Slavonia.] Natur- 

 •wiss. Zei schr. Forst-u. Landw. 18:39-41. 1920. 



124. Hay, R. Dalrymple. Progress of forestry under independent management in New 

 South Wales. Australian Forest. Jour. 3: 151-156. 1920. — A record of established progress 

 in forest management by the Forestry Commission of New South Wales following a needed 

 reform is given under these topics: classification, demarkation and organization, fire protec- 

 tion, utilization and regeneration of hardwood forests, publicity work, forest grazing, fores- 

 try statistics, forestry education, coniferous plantations, research, and forest revenue. — 

 C. F. Korstian. 



125. Henry, Augustine. The afiforestation of water catchment areas. [Abstract.] 

 Rept. British Assoc. Adv. Sci. 1919: 337. 1920. 



126. Hirst, E. C. State forest fire protection. Amer. Forest. 26: 408-409. 1920. 



127. HoDSON, E. R. Some present day problems in forestry. Utah Acad. Sci. 1: 45-54. 

 1918. — Paper presented to the Academy in April, 1911. 



128. Hohenadl, W. Die Hebung der Alpwirtschaft. [Promotion of the alpine dairy 

 business.] Forstwiss. Centralbl. 42:41-59. 1920. — The author contrasts the development 

 of the dairy industry in Allgau with that in Upper Bavaria. The difference is to a consider- 

 able extent traceable to the difference in character of ownership of the mountain pastures 

 as well as of the mountain forests. This industry is in very close contact with the forest 

 industry, and foresters are especially favorably situated for taking the lead in promoting 

 better methods and more conservative, and at the same time, more intensive utilization. — 

 W. N. Sparhawk. 



129. HuTCHiNS, D. E. Insignis-pine disease. Jour. Agric. New Zealand 16: 37. 1918. — 

 See Bot. Absts. 5, Entry 1273. 



130. JuDD, C. S. The kauri pine. Hawaiian Forester and Agric. 17: 167-169. PI. 1. 

 1920. — This is reported as being the most promising and widely useful tree for planting in the 

 Hawaiian Islands for the purpose of producing lumber. This species, Agathis australis 

 shows a rapid growth in the Islands, "averaging a growth of 1 inch in diameter every 4| 

 years." It was introduced into Hawaii about forty years ago. — Stanley Coulter. 



131. Korstian, C. F. Value of scientific research in forestry. Utah Acad. Sci. 1: 186- 

 194. 1918. 



132. Leiningen-Westerburg, (Graf zu). Rauchschaden und einschlagige bodenkund- 

 liche Fragen. [Smoke injury and related matters of soil science.] Forstwiss. Centralbl. 

 42: 18-93. 1920.— See Bot. Absts. 7, Entry 459. 



133. Mackay, H. Forestry in Victoria. Australian Forest. Jour. 3:147-150, 179-182. 

 1920. — The second and third installments of a continued article. The silviculture of eucalyp- 

 tus forest- is briefly treated. The following methods of cutting are advocated as the simplest 

 and best forms of management for adaptation in Australia: (1) clear cutting; (2) modified 

 selection; (3) for young forest, coppice with standards, or a modification of the shelterwood 

 compartment system; (4) simple coppice, or the clear cutting of pole timber. A rotation of 

 20 to 30 years for a box and ironbark forest will produce pole timber from 6 to 9 inches in 

 diameter, with some 12-inch timber. The progress made in plantation work and in gifts of 

 trees for shelterbelts to small settlers is noted. — C. F. Korstian. 



