Forestry Literature. 87 



he condemned planting and thinning, but described 

 quite well for his time the methods of survey, sub- 

 division, estimating and measuring, and the methods 

 of selection forest and coppice with standards. 

 His ignorance is characterized by his reference to 

 the "sulphurous and nitric elements of the soil" as 

 cause of spontaneous forest fires. 



Opinionated and one-sided, like many so-called prac- 

 tical men, he came into polemic controversies with 

 other practitioners, not less opinionated, among them 

 J. G. Beckmann, who worked in another part of 

 Saxony, where, having to deal with coniferous woods, 

 he had gathered different experiences from those of 

 Doebel. Although he was himself poorly educated, 

 especially in natural sciences, he complained of the 

 ignorance of the foresters, and in his book (Anweisung 

 zu einer pfleglichen Forstwirthschaft, 1759), used for 

 the first time the word Forstwissenschaft (forest 

 science), and insisted upon the necessity of studying 

 nature. 



He may be credited with having really advanced 

 forest organization by devising the first good volume 

 division method, and silviculture by advocating the 

 method of clearing followed by sowing. 



The first practical forester with a university educa- 

 tion was /. J. Buchting, who worked in the Harz 

 mountains. His main interest lay in the direction of 

 survey, division and orderly utilization. He did not, 

 however, make any striking advance, except that 

 he gave equal standing to both planting and sowing. 



The two most eminent practitioners of the period, 

 however, active during the middle of the century, 



