Rhodesia and Nyasaland

J. M. Rattray; H. Wild

This paper provides a detailed account of the background, methodology, classification system, and legend of the Vegetation Map of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The map, serving as Federal Atlas Map No. 10, was produced to adopt, as closely as possible, the vegetation classification system recommended by the C.S.A. (Scientific Council for Africa South of the Sahara) Specialist Meeting held at Yangambi in 1956. It also drew upon Keay's Vegetation Map of Africa and Rattray's Map of the Grass Cover of Africa. The map's outlines were largely compiled from published maps by Henkel (1931) for Southern Rhodesia and Trapnell, Martin, and Allen (1950) for Northern Rhodesia, along with unpublished maps by Willan and Jackson for Nyasaland, with revisions and field sketches contributed by several experts. The classification employs a combination of colors and hatching patterns to represent vegetation types ranging from moist montane forests to dry mopane savannas. The paper describes the dominant species, ecological characteristics, and distribution of each category, including high-altitude grasslands dominated by Themeda, Loudetia, and Exotheca, and lowland savannas featuring Colophospermum mopane and various Acacia species. It also discusses challenges in applying the Yangambi system, particularly in distinguishing between savanna and steppe, noting that in regions like Bechuanaland, the boundary is highly subjective due to annual variations in grass development and game activity. The paper concludes with a comprehensive legend listing 26 vegetation categories with their corresponding colors and symbols, along with references and publication details.

Ena L. Yonge

This article provides a systematic summary review of approximately one hundred regional atlases from around the world, organized primarily by continent (or other large region) and then alphabetically by country within each group. The author begins by noting that the ever-increasing flood of atlases—national, regional, topical, and special—makes individual reviews impossible, thus necessitating summary evaluations to acknowledge important publications while respecting space constraints. The review covers representative works from Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, North America, and South America, encompassing road atlases, historical-geographical atlases, national atlases, climatic atlases, economic atlases, and school atlases. Each atlas is assessed in terms of its compiling institution, editors, scales, number of plates, content structure, cartographic techniques, printing quality, and scholarly value, with notable features and shortcomings highlighted. For instance, the European section evaluates works such as the Euroatlas, Atlas östliches Mitteleuropa, Atlas von Niederösterreich, Atlas de Belgique, Climatic Atlas of Czechoslovakia, Atlas of Denmark, and Atlas of Finland, while the American section covers state atlases from Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia, as well as national atlases from Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela. The article emphasizes that these atlases not only reflect the research standards of geography and cartography in their respective countries but also serve as vital references for regional planning, economic development, historical research, and education. The author concludes by acknowledging that no single individual can possess sufficient expertise across all aspects of geography, cartography, and linguistics to render definitive critical judgments, yet such summaries offer valuable guidance to scholars, with a forthcoming review of world atlases and special atlases announced.