98 Germany. 
most widespread condition, vanished to a large extent. 
This was especially unfortunate in Northern and North- 
eastern pine forests. 
A reaction from Hartig’s generalization began about 
1830 under the lead of Pfeil. He had at first agreed 
with Hartig, and then with equal narrowness advocated 
for many years a clear cutting system with artificial re- 
forestation. Finally he was not afraid to acknowledge 
that his early generalizations in this respect were a mis- 
take, and that different conditions required different 
treatment. 
In the development of the shelterwood system there 
was at first under the lead of Hartig, a tendency to open 
up rather sharply, taking out about three-fourths of the 
existing stand, but gradually he became convinced that 
this was too much, and finally reduced the first removal 
to only about one-third of the stand. This was the origin 
of his nickname of Dunkelman. In spite of the fact 
that it was claimed that Cotta took the opposite view 
(for which he was called Lichtman), he, too, grew to 
favor a dark position, and, as he progressed, leaned more 
and more towards more careful opening up. Hartig 
originally recognized only three different fellings: the 
cutting for seed; the cutting for light; and the 
removal cutting. By and by a second cut was made 
during the seed year, and the number of fellings to 
secure gradual removal were increased so that by 1801 
this system seems to have been pretty nearly perfected 
to its modern conditions. The best exposition of this 
Femelschlagbetrieb (shelterwood system), as then de- 
veloped, is to be found in Karl Heyer’s Handbook, 1854. 
The method was unfortunately extended to the North- 
