DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2003 str. 65 <-- 65 --> PDF |
S. Vojniković: POVIJEST I POSTOJEĆI PROBLEMI FITOCENOLOŠKE NOMENKLATURE I KLASIFIKACIJI: 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 |