634 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



with Professor H. H. Chapman the reviewer is now engaged on a 

 book to be entitled "American Forest Regulation," in which working 

 plans will be given but scant attention for the same reasons. Reck- 

 nagel also cites reasons for omitting the philosophy of rotations. But 

 there is vastly more to be found about rotations in American forest 

 literature and practice than there is about working plans. So it is 

 evident under what a handicap the author of Forest Working Plans 

 has been laboring. Therefore all the more encouragement is due him 

 for contributing to a subject ivhich ez'ery branch of the profession has 

 neglected thus far in our forest history. Hutton (a recent graduate of 

 Yale), has been about the only American forester to produce (in 1916) 

 even a preliminary plan for a National Forest along sound lines 

 (Olympic Forest, District 6), that may be applied. Possible exceptions 

 are the working plans made each spring by the senior class of the Yale 

 Forest School, but these are for private tracts and are not applied. 



Recknagel's discussion of the normal forest is greatly improved 

 over the first edition ; diagrams A and B are excellent, although he 

 might have introduced a curve into diagram A (p. 2) showing the 

 trend of mean annual growth (for a given species and site) as a basis 

 for comparison with the line A C. Perhaps a little more philosophy 

 could have been lavished on the economy of using Flury's constant 

 (pp. 9, 10, 11). There is still a painstaking description of methods of 

 regulating the cut (18 in all). In commenting on the first edition 

 Sir William Schlich criticised this multiplication of methods but it is 

 simply the German systematic method of covering everything as op- 

 posed to French simplicity. The German will describe (Mayr for 

 example) perhaps 28 formal methods of reproduction; the French 

 forester will describe but three or four (coppice, clear cutting, selec- 

 tion), and then indicate how these may be varied by describing pos- 

 sible combinations. It is simply the difference in national methods 

 and at present the reviewer is rather "pro-ally" ! 



Diagram E (p. 125) representing the determination of cut by 18 

 different methods is interesting, but the comparison is not convincing 

 because of the variation in results between certain formula methods 

 of regulating the cut according to the amount of the actual growing 

 stock as compared with normal in the specific example used. With 

 different figures a different degree of divergence would have been 

 secured. 



In describing the Austrian formula (p. 78) it is stated: "The period 

 of time in which the actual growing stock is brought to point of nor- 



