18 FOKESTKY [Box. Absts., Vol. VII, 



134. Maxwell, Hu. The uses of wood. Wood for musical instruments. Amer. Forest. 

 26:532-539. 16 fig. 1920. 



135. MoEEiLLON, M. Dommages causes aux forSts du canton de Vaud par le foehn des 4 

 et 5 Janvier 1919. [Damage to the forests of Vaud (Switzerland) by the foehn of January 4 

 and 5, 1919.] Jour. Forest. Suisse 71 : 41-44. 1920.— A brief presentation of reasons why this 

 wind should have caused local wind-throw although the foehns of other years have never 

 been known to do so. — C. J. Kraebel. 



136. MoEEiLLON, M. Influence de I'cmbrage sur la valeur des gazons dans les paturages 

 boises. [The influence of shade upon the value of grasses in wooded pastures.] Jour. Forest. 

 Suisse 70: 131-142. 1919.— See Bot. Absts. 7, Entry 39. 



137. NiKLAS, H. Die Bedeutung der Geologie fdr die Land- und Forstwirtschaftliche 

 Bodenkunde. [The significance of the science of geology with relation to agricultural and 

 forest soil science.] Naturwiss. Zeitschr. Forst-u, Landw. 18: 22-35. 1920.— See Bot. Absts. 

 7, Entry 478. 



138. NiKLAS, H. tJbersicht uber Bayens Bodenverhaltnisse. [Summary of Bavarian soil 

 conditions.] Forstwiss. Centralbl. 42: 123-135. 1920.— See Bot. Absts. 7, Entry 461. 



139. Pack, Chas. L. Fire protection and more public forest land. Amer. Forest. 26: 

 526-528. 1920. 



140. PiETSCH, Albert. Wie erklart sich das lange Hangenbleiben der Blatter an einigen 

 phanerogamen Holzgewachsen im Herbste 1919? [What is the explanation for the late reten- 

 tion of the foliage of several phanerogamous woody plants in the fall of 1919?] Naturwiss. 

 Zeitschr. Forst-u. Landw. 18: 150-155. 1920.— A combination of adverse conditions— a late 

 spring, a cool summer, a wet October, and an early November frost — was responsible for the 

 rather extraordinary retention of the foliage in the pear {Pirus communis), red thorn (Cra- 

 taegus monogyna), the garden rose, blackberry (Rubus caesius), and peach {Prunus persica) 

 in the fall of 1919. The explanation lies in the meteorological conditions through the year. — 

 J. RoQser. 



141. Prantner, E. F. The forests of a new republic. Amer. Forest. 26: 522-525. 9 fi^.y 

 1 map. 1920. — A brief discussion of forest conditions in Czechoslovakia. — Chas. H. Otis. 



142. Recknagel, A. B. New York's forests and their future. Amer. Forest. 26: 518-521. 

 4fig.,l table. 1920. 



143. Roth, Filibert. Another word on "light burning." Amer. Forest. 26:548, 572. 

 1920. 



144. Rubner, K. Forstliche Standortsgewachse im westlichen Moranengebiet Bayerns. 

 [Vegetation as forest site indicators in Bavaria.] Forstwiss. Centralbl. 42: 135-144. 1920.— 

 The author discusses Cajander's theory that forest sites can be classed into a very few types 

 based on key plants, such as Oxalis, Vaccinium myrtillus, and Calluna, regardless of eleva- 

 tion, soil conditions, latitude, or other factors, and that the growth of the same species within 

 one type wherever located is about the same, but is very different in different types. Rubner 

 does not believe that such general classification, even with the subtypes Cajander proposed, 

 can be made to apply to a large region, but believes that each locality will have certain plants 

 that indicate the character of the different sites, which may or may not be common to other 

 localities. He illustrates this by discussing the vegetation under the forests in the districts 

 of Betzigau, Ottobeuren, Sachsenried, and Denklingen, which is the optimum spruce region in 

 Bavaria and possibly in all Germany, with yields far above the average for Quality I sites. 

 Indicator plants show particularly the humus conditions; i.e., whether the soils are mild, 

 with normal decomposition of humus, or whether they are becoming acid with raw humus. 



