Current Literature 727 



matter of fact the French have (officially) abandoned the fifth 

 year of tapping because of the following objections: (1) Difficulty 

 of chipping the face when it is over 3 meters (9.8 feet) in height. 

 (2) This high face (which is often too deep because of the diffi- 

 culty of accurate chipping) heals poorly or very slowly. (3) An 

 important part of the bole is damaged by a high face. For these 

 reasons the French have reduced the tapping period from 5 to 4 

 years. This fact was evidently not known to Betts and Schorger; 

 however, the oversight is a natural one because it is a recent change, 

 although it has been under consideration for some time. The 

 modern dimensions for the faces are as follows : 



Width Height 



Year {Centimeters) (Inches) (Centimeters) (Inches) 



1 9 3.5 60 23.6 



2 9 3.5 60 23.6 



3 8 3.1 75 29.5 



(2.75) 



4 7 to 6 (2.36) 95 37.4 



2.90 meters. 9.5 feet. 



With the former fifth year system in vogue, the total height was 

 3.70 metres (12.1 feet) before 1904; 3.40 metres (11.1 feet) from 

 1904 to 1909 ; and 3.20 metres (10.4 feet) since 1910. The authors 

 failed to bring this information out. Such a tendency to a shorter 

 face is of vital interest. 



This reduction of the length of the tapping period will mean 

 the revision of working plans after the war. The regeneration by 

 clear cutting will be every 4 years instead of 5 years as formerly. 

 The cycle for thinnings will also be reduced from 5 to 4 years. In 

 the future the cleanings will be made earlier after regeneration, 

 since experience has shown the inconvenience of waiting for 5, 6, or 

 7 years as was formerly the case. Such points as these are of keen 

 interest, yet they do not appear in the bulletin. 



Plate IX would have been much clearer if, besides nimibering 

 the tools alluded to in the text, the French names had also been 

 given, secured from an exact source. The correct French names 

 for this plate are cited in the paragraph which follows. Ap- 

 parently the text does not allude to the instrimient labelled num- 

 ber " 2 " in this plate. The correct explanation of Plate IX, figures 

 1 to 5 inclusive (furnished me personally by Conservateur De. 

 Lapasee of Bordeaux), is as follows: 



