The lichens of Hooker’s[97] Flora Scotica, which is synchronous with Gray’s work, number 195 species, an increase of about 90 for Scotland since the publication of Lightfoot’s Flora more than 40 years before. Hooker also followed Acharius in his classification of lichens both in the Flora Scotica and in the Supplement to English Botany[98], which was undertaken by the younger Sowerbys and himself. To that work Borrer (1781-1862), a keen lichenologist, supplied many new and rare lichens collected mostly in Sussex.
It is a matter of regret that Greville should have so entirely ignored lichens in his great work on Scottish Cryptogams[99]. The two species of Lichina are the only ones he figured, and these he took to be algae. He[100] was well acquainted with lichens, for in the Flora Edinensis he lists 128 species for the Edinburgh district, arranging the genera under “Lichenes” with the exception of Opegrapha and Verrucaria which are placed with the fungus genus Poronia in “Hypoxyla.” Though he cites the publications of Acharius, he does not employ his scientific terms, possibly because he was writing his diagnoses in English. Two other British works of this time still remain to be chronicled: Hooker’s[101] contributions to Smith’s English Flora and Taylor’s[102] work on lichens in Mackay’s Flora Hibernica. Through these the knowledge of the subject was very largely extended in our country.
The classification of lichens and their place in the vegetable kingdom were now firmly established on the lines laid down by Acharius. Fries[103] in his important work Lichenographia Europaea more or less followed his distinguished countryman. The uncertainty as to the position and relationship of lichens had rendered the task of systematic arrangement one of peculiar difficulty and had unduly absorbed attention; but now that a satisfactory order had been established in the chaos of forms, the way was clear for other aspects of the study. Several writers expressed their views by suggesting somewhat different methods of classification, others wrote monographs of separate groups, or genera. Fée[104] published an Essay on the Cryptogams (mostly lichens) that grew on officinal exotic barks; Flörke[105] took up the difficult genus Cladonia; Wallroth[106] also wrote on Cladonia; Delise[107] on Sticta, and Chevalier[108] published a long and elaborate account of Graphideae.
Wallroth and Meyer at this time published, simultaneously, important studies on the general morphology and physiology of lichens. Wallroth[109] had contemplated an even larger work on the Natural History of Lichens, but only two of the volumes reached publication. In the first of these he devoted much attention to the “gonidia” or “brood-cells” and established the distinction between the heteromerous and homoiomerous distribution of green cells within the thallus; he also describes with great detail the “morphosis” and “metamorphosis” of the vegetative body. In the second volume he discusses their physiology—the contents and products of the thallus, colouring, nutrition, season of development, etc.—and finally the pathology of these organisms. He made no great use of the compound microscope, and his studies were confined to phenomena that could be observed with a single lens.
Meyer’s[110] work contains a still more exact study of the anatomy and physiology of lichens; he also devotes many passages to an account of their metamorphoses, pointing out that species alter so much in varying conditions, that the same one at different stages may be placed even in different genera; he however carries his theory of metamorphosis too far and unites together widely separated plants. Meyer was the first to describe the growth of the lichen from spores, though his description is somewhat confused. Possibly the honour of having first observed their germination should be given to a later botanist, Holle[111]. The works of both Wallroth and Meyer enjoyed a great and well-merited reputation: they were standard books of consultation for many years. Koerber[112], who devoted a long treatise to the study of gonidia, confirmed Wallroth’s theories: he considered at that time that the gonidia in the soredial condition were organs of propagation.
Mention should be made here of the many able and keen collectors who, in the latter half of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, did so much to further the knowledge of lichens in the British Isles. Among the earliest of these naturalists are Richard Pulteney (1730-1801), whose collection of plants, now in the herbarium of the British Museum, includes many lichens, and Hugh Davies (1739-1821), a clergyman whose Welsh plants also form part of the Museum collection. The Rev. John Harriman (1760-1831) sent many rare plants from Egglestone in Durham to the editors of English Botany and among them were not a few lichens. Edward Forster (1765-1849) lived in Essex and collected in that county, more especially in and near Epping Forest, and another East country botanist, Dawson Turner (1775-1858), though chiefly known as an algologist, gave considerable attention to lichens. In Scotland the two most active workers were Charles Lyell (1767-1849), of Kinnordy in Forfarshire, and George Don (1798-1856), also a Forfar man. Don was a gardener and became eventually a foreman at the Chelsea Physic Garden. Sir Thomas Gage of Hengrave Hall (1781-1823) botanized chiefly in his own county of Suffolk; but most of his lichens were collected in South Ireland and are incorporated in the herbarium of the British Museum. Miss Hutchins also collected in Ireland and sent her plants for inclusion in English Botany. But in later years, the principal lichenologist connected with that great undertaking was W. Borrer, who spent his life in Sussex: he not only supplied a large number of specimens to the authors, but he himself discovered and described many new lichens.
American lichenologists were also extremely active all through this period. The comparatively few lichens of Michaux’s[113] Flora grouped under “Lichenaceae” were collected in such widely separated regions as Carolina and Canada. A few years later Mühlenberg[114] included no fewer than 184 species in his Catalogue of North American Plants. Torrey[115] and Halsey[116] botanized over a limited area near New York, and the latter, who devoted himself more especially to lichens, succeeded in recording 176 different forms, old and new. These two botanists were both indebted for help in their work to Schweinitz, a Moravian brother, who moved from one country to another, working and publishing, now in America and now in Europe. His name is however chiefly associated with fungi. Later American lichenology is nobly represented by Tuckerman[117] who issued his first work on lichens in 1839, and who continued for many years to devote himself to the subject. He followed at first the classification and nomenclature that had been adopted by Fée, but as time went on he associated himself with all that was best and most enlightened in the growing science.
Travellers and explorers in those days of high adventure were constantly sending their specimens to European botanists for examination and determination, and the knowledge of exotic lichens as of other classes of plants grew with opportunity. Among the principal home workers in foreign material, at this time, may be cited Fée[118] who described a very large series on officinal barks (Cinchona, etc.) so largely coming into use as medicines; he also took charge of the lichens in Martius’s[119] Flora of Brazil. Montagne[120] named large collections, notably those of Leprieur collected in Guiana, and Hooker[121] and Walker Arnott determined the plants collected during Captain Beechey’s voyage, which included lichens from many different regions.
G. Period VI. 1846-1867
The last work of importance, in which microscopic characters were ignored, was the Enumeratio critica Lichenum Europaeum by Schaerer[122], a veteran lichenologist, who rather sadly realized at the end the limitations of that work, as he asks the reader to accept it “such as it is.” Many years previously, Eschweiler[123] in his Systema and Fée[124] in his account of Cryptogams on Officinal Bark, had given particular attention to the internal structure as well as to the outward form of the lichen fructification. Fée, more especially, had described and figured a large number of spores; but neither writer had done more than suggest their value as a guide in the determination of genera and species.