This last family, which includes the great bulk of lichens, is divided into the following series: I. Epiconiodei; II. Cladoniodei; III. Ramalodei; IV. Phyllodei; V. Placodei; VI. Pyrenodei. It is an ascending series up to the Phyllodei, or foliaceous lichens, which he considers higher in development than the fruticose or filamentous Ramalodei. The Placodei include four tribes on a descending scale, the Lecanorei, Lecidinei, Xylographidei and Graphidei. The classification is almost wholly based on thalline form, except for the Pyrenodei in which are represented genera with closed fruits, there being one tribe only, the Pyrenocarpei.
Nylander claims however to have had regard equally to the reproductive system and was the first to give importance to the spermogonia. The classification is coherent and easy to follow, though, like all classifications based on imperfect knowledge, it is not a little artificial; also while magnifying the significance of spermogonia and spermatia, he overlooked the much more important characters of the ascospores.
f. Müller(-Argau). In preparing his lists of Genevan lichens (1862), Müller realized that Nylander’s series was unnatural, and he found as he studied more deeply that lichens must be ranged in parallel or convergent but detached groups. He recognized three main groups:
- 1. Eulichens, divided into Capitularieae, Discocarpeae and Verrucaroideae.
- 2. Epiconiaceae.
- 3. Collemaceae.
He suggested that, in relation to other plants, Eulichens approach Pezizae, Hysteriaceae and Sphaeriaceae; Epiconiaceae have affinity with Lycoperdaceae, while Collemaceae are allied to the algal family Nostocaceae. These three groups of Eulichens, he held, advanced on somewhat parallel lines, but reached a very varied development, the Discocarpeae attaining the highest stage of thalline form. Müller accepted as characters of generic importance the form and structure of the fruiting body, the presence or absence of paraphyses, and the septation, colour, etc. of the spores.
A few years later (1867) the composite nature of the lichen thallus was announced by Schwendener, and, after some time, was acknowledged by most botanists to be in accordance with the facts of nature. Any system of classification, therefore, that claims to be a natural one, must, while following as far as possible the line of plant development, take into account the double origin of lichens both from algae and fungi, the essential unity and coherence of the class being however proved by the recurring similarity between the thalline types of the different phyla. As Müller had surmised: “they are a series of parallel detached though convergent groups.”
g. Reinke. The arrangement of Ascolichens on these lines was first seriously studied by Reinke[1026], and his conclusions, which are embodied[1027] in the Lichens of Schleswig-Holstein, have been largely accepted by succeeding workers. He recognizes three great subclasses: 1. Coniocarpi; 2. Discocarpi; 3. Pyrenocarpi.
The Coniocarpi are a group apart, but as their fruit is at first entirely closed—at least in some of the genera—the more natural position for them is between Discocarpi and Pyrenocarpi. It is in the arrangement of the Discocarpi that variation occurs. Reinke’s arrangement of orders and families in that sub-class is as follows:
Subclass 2. Discocarpi.