852 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



We believe more credit is due to the Schneider formula (page iii), 

 which, it should have been stated, is really the formula for basal area 

 increment, and can, w^ith certain reservations, be usefully applied in 

 determining increments of volume of stands. 



We applaud the scoring (page 113) of the large number of forest 

 mathematicians who still think they can solve the ])ractical impossi- 

 bility of determining increment in selection forest. 



In the chapter -on "Regulating the Cut" we find fault with the de- 

 scription of Heyer's method. It is not at all in the s])irit of Meyer to 

 rely exclusively on a formula, and he warns particularly against its use 

 except as a check on an area allotment. Besides, his use of the incre- 

 ment is peculiar and different from that stated, namely, a combination 

 of actual and normal increment. There is no other method that could 

 be more satisfactorily used to demonstrate principles in budget deter- 

 mination. 



In the same chapter the explanation of a cutting or felling series 

 could be improved and the statement left out that it is inapplicable in 

 the selection forest, for in the well-managed selection forest a pur- 

 poseful distribution of age classes is also attempted. 



An interesting technical inaccuracy occurs on page 144, quoting the 

 definition of soil rent (after on page 143 a correct definition has been 

 given) as the largest per cent on the money invested in the forest. It 

 should read on the investment vahic of the forest. Since this misunder- 

 standing is rather general, we may go out of our way here to clear up 

 the difference. Fifty years ago the annual net income of the Prussian 

 State forests was around 80 cents per acre, on the average. Let us 

 assume that the property was then sold for the capitalization of its 

 income with a 4 per cent discount rate — that is, for $20 per acre. This 

 to the purchaser would be the investment, the "money invested in the 

 forest." Forty years later the investment of the purchaser would still 

 be $20, but, if he managed as the State has actually done, the net in- 

 come was around $2.50, or 12.5 per cent, and the investment I'aluc 

 could be figured, say with a 5 per cent discount rate, at $50 per acre. 

 The 2 to 3 per cent soil rent calculation of German State forests are 

 figured on investment value, not on actual investment. 



We would question the propriety of translating (on page 183) 100 

 cubic feet to "about 623 board feet," costing in Germany to produce 

 $4.17. Such translation would naturally lead the reader to suppose 

 this to be the cost of saw material, while the 100 cubic feet includes 

 around one-third of cordwood, and the cost of the material that can 

 be sawed into boards is therefore above $6 per 100 cubic feet, which 

 may amount to, say, around $8 per thousand feet. 



