It cannot be affirmed that nomenclature is as yet firmly established in lichenology. Both on historical grounds and on those of convenience, the subject is one of extreme importance, and interest in it is one of the main avenues by which we secure continuity with the past, and by which we are able to realize not only the difficulty, but the romance of pioneer work. Besides, there can be no exchange of opinion between students nor assured knowledge of plants, until the names given to them are beyond dispute. According to the ruling of the Brussels Botanical Congress in 1910, Linnaeus’s[1033] list of lichens in the Species Plantarum has been selected as the basis of nomenclature, but since his day many new families, genera and species have been described and often insufficiently delimited. It is not easy to decide between priority, which appeals to the historical sense, and recent use which is the plea of convenience. Here also it seems there can be no rigid decision; the one aim should be to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to all, and accepted by all.

In the following necessarily brief account of families and genera, the “spermogonia” or “pycnidia” have in most cases been left out of account, as in many instances they vary within the family and occasionally even within the genus. Their taxonomic value is not without importance, but, in the general systematic arrangement, they are only subsidiary characters. An account of them has already been given, and for more detailed statements the student is referred to purely systematic works.

There are two main types of spore production in the “pycnidia” which have been shortly described by Steiner[1034] as “exobasidial” and “endobasidial.” In the former the sporophores are simple or branched filaments, at the apices of which a short process grows out and buds off a pycnidiospore; in the latter the spores are budded directly from cells lining the walls or filling the cavity of the pycnidium. The exobasidial type is more simply rendered in the following pages by “acrogenous,” the endobasidial by “pleurogenous” spore production. In many cases the “spermogonia” or “pycnidia” are still imperfectly known. In designating the gonidial algae, the more comprehensive Protococcaceae has been substituted for Protococcus, as in many cases the alga is probably not Protococcus as now understood, but some other genus of the family[1035].

Subclass I. ASCOLICHENS

Series I. PYRENOCARPINEAE

It is on mycological grounds that Pyrenocarpineae are placed at the base of lichen classification. There is no evidence that the series was first in time.

I. Moriolaceae

This family was described by Norman[1036] in 1872 from specimens collected by himself in Norway or in the Tyrol, on soil or more frequently on trees. There seems to have been no further record, and Zahlbruckner, while accepting the family, suggests that an examination or revision may be necessary.

The thallus is crustaceous. The algal cells, Protococcaceae, occur either in groups (sometimes stalked) surrounded by a plectenchymatous wall and called by Norman “goniocysts,” or they form nests in the thallus termed “nuclei” which are surrounded by a double wall of plectenchyma, colourless in the interior and brown outside. Norman invented the term “Allelositismus,” which may be rendered “mutualism,” to indicate this peculiar form of thallus. The species of Spheconisca are fairly numerous on poplars, willows and conifers:

Algae in “goniocysts”1.*Moriola Norm.[1037]
Algae in double-walled “nuclei”2.*Spheconisca Norm.