The studies on vegetation carried out by Braun-Blanquet were undoubtedly helpful, but they needed help to keep up with the upheavals of scientific paradigms. So, phytosociology studies present advantages regarding the description (syntaxonomy) of vegetation but also limitations, being based on a positivist epistemology and on ecological concepts that are now outdated. The differences in the representation of the ecological space between phytosociology and the bionomic view is sharp, as we can see from the beginning of this chapter. We must consider the concept of “fittest vegetation for”, i.e. a reinterpretation of potential vegetation indicates the most ‘suitable’ vegetation. These limits of Phytosociology explain why Ingegnoli, Giglio, and Pignatti (2007) have proposed a new methodology called LaBiSV (Landscape Bionomic Survey of Vegetation), whose theoretical bases can be summarized as follows: (a) reference to the concepts of ecocoenotope and ecotissue, (b) use of the biological-territorial capacity of vegetation (BTC) as the primary integrative function, (c) drafting of development models of the different types of vegetation (time-BTC) based on the dynamic relationships between gross primary productivity, net primary productivity and the respiration of plant phytocoenosis summarized in an exponential and logarithmic function, (d) possibility to study the ecological state of natural and anthropic vegetated patches. The Concise Bionomic State (CBSt) of the formations under examination is the indicator that considers the degree of maturity of the phytocoenosis too, and, therefore, estimates the ecological efficiency of the vegetation in percentage.