prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2003 str. 65     <-- 65 -->        PDF

were selected and classified in association s rank. The problem of harmonising
of synonyms related to republics of ex Yugoslavia as well as neighbour
country´s. It is estimated that even 1/3 of determined phytocoenoses were
described before in other countries but under different names.

The essential idea related to dividing vegetation on plant communities
appeared on beginning of XIX century from brilliant plant geographysts:
Humbolt (1805). Schouw (1823), Heer (1835) and Greisbach (1835)´. The
idea was developed into the two main directions: the physiognomic and the

floristic. Based on the work of their students was born the idea for floristic-
sociological approach. On the begging of XX century this idea leaded on
Braun-Blanquet and his colleges from Zurich and Montpellier was more
developed. On the Third International Botanical Congress in Brussels Flahault
& Schroter (1910) presented first definition of the association. Braun-
Blanquet 1921 established the base for the system as a whole, with analytical
scales and the "sociologicalprogression ". The unique definition for association
with following rules was accepted 1976 in Den Haag and 1980 in Sydney
on Botanical Congresses. In the paper was mentioned that last changing of
the international Codex was at 2000 year by the We b e r, H. E.; Moravec,
J.; Theurillat, J. -P.

The most frequent failures concerning nomenclature and classification are
as follows: non-accepting rules for nomenclature (Codex of Phytocoenological
Nomenclature): non-following actual phytocoenological systematic;
different interpreting terms and definitions and poor researching and lack of
knowledge related to plant community.

The problem of characteristic species was mentioned in this paper. The
characteristic plants were compared with main mineral of stones. The mineral
can belong to a number of different assemblies of main minerals.
Consequently, characteristic specie can belong to different plant communities,
which are defined with assembly of characteristics species. Some important
questions should be focused (related to an assembly of characteristic
species not only one plant) as follows: What are the differences between
assemblies? Which species appeared? Which species disappeared? Some
mistakes and problems in classification and phytocoenolgical nomenclature
in the region were discussed in the paper.

The strict using phytocoenolgical nomenclature could result with some
problems for foresters on the field. The reasons are as follows: foresters are
usually not expert in phytocoenology, they have insufficient floristically
knowledge and some species appear in one aspect only, e.g. spring or summer.
We have to be very careful regarding naming some new plant community.

In order to solve these problems we need detail analyses phytocoenological
classifications and we have to compare situation in widerphytogeographical
areas, with an ultimate aim of renaming sintaxomy categories in accordance
with Codex of Phytocoenological Nomenclature.

Šumarski liši br. 3-4. CXXVII (2003). 153-159