“…Several detailed phytosociological studies have been carried out, mostly within restricted regions (Braun‐Blanquet, Roussine, & Nègre, ; Danin & Solomeshch, ; Demartini, ; Eig, ; Géhu, ; Géhu & Biondi, ; Géhu & Géhu‐Frank, ; Iakushenko, Matchutadze, Tokaryuk, Solomakha, & Bolqvadze, ; Isermann, ; Korzhenevsky & Kvitnitskaya, ; Mayer, ; Morariu, ; Oberdorfer, ; Piotrowska, , ; Rivas‐Goday & Rivas‐Martínez, ; Šilc et al., ; Sýkora, Babalonas, & Papastergiadou, ; Vicherek, ). These contributions reveal conflicting views on the syntaxonomy of dune vegetation, which can be partially related to advances in knowledge (see, for instance, the evolution in the syntaxonomic schemes published by Braun‐Blanquet, ; Braun‐Blanquet & Tüxen, ; Westhoff, Dijk, & Passchier, ; Pignatti, ; Sissingh, ; Géhu, , ; Géhu, Biondi, Costa, & Géhu‐Frank, ; Brullo & Furnari, ; Géhu & Uslu, ; Brullo, Giusso del Galdo, Siracusa, & Spampinato, ; Rivas‐Martínez et al., ; Bardat et al., ; Biondi & Galdenzi, ; Mucina et al., ). Also the latest syntaxonomic scheme of European coastal dune vegetation proposed in EVC (Mucina et al., ) and adopted by the IAVS Working Group European Vegetation Survey as the standard classification of European vegetation is based on a review of the existing concepts rather than on the data analysis and it therefore needs to be tested.…”