Recently, Dr. Thwaites has communicated his views on one phase of this controversy,[S] which will serve to illustrate the question as seen from the mycological side. As is well known, this writer has had considerable experience in the study of the anatomy and physiology of all the lower cryptogamia, and any suggestion of his on such a subject will at least commend itself to a patient consideration.
“According to our experience,” he writes, “I think parasitic fungi invariably produce a sad effect upon the tissues they fix themselves upon or in. These tissues become pale in colour, and in every respect sickly in appearance. But who has ever seen the gonidia of lichens the worse for having the ‘hypha’ growing amongst them? These gonidia are always in the plumpest state, and with the freshest, healthiest colour possible. Cannot it enter into the heads of these most patient and excellent observers, that a cryptogamic plant may have two kinds of tissue growing side by side, without the necessity of one being parasitic upon the other, just as one of the higher plants may have half a dozen kinds of tissue making up its organization? The beautifully symmetrical growth of the same lichens has seemed to me a sufficient argument against one portion being parasitic upon another, but when we see all harmony and robust health, the idea that one portion is subsisting parasitically upon another appears to me to be a perfect absurdity.”
It appears to us that a great deal of confusion and a large number of errors which creep into our modern generalizations and hypotheses, may be traced to the acceptance of analogies for identities. How many cases of mistaken identity has the improvement of microscopes revealed during the past quarter of a century. This should at least serve as a caution for the future.
Apart, however, from the “gonidia,” whatever they may be, is the remainder of the lichen a genuine fungus? Nylander writes, “The anatomical filamentose elements of lichens are distinguished by various characters from the hyphæ of fungi. They are firmer, elastic, and at once present themselves in the texture of lichens. On the other hand, the hyphæ of fungi are very soft, they possess a thin wall, and are not at all gelatinous, while they are immediately dissolved by the application of hydrate of potash, &c.”[T]
Our own experience is somewhat to the effect, that there are some few lichens which are doubtful as to whether they are fungi or lichens, but, in by far the majority of cases, there is not the slightest difficulty in determining, from the peculiar firmness and elasticity of the tissues, minute peculiarities which the practised hand can detect rather than describe, and even the general character of the fruit that they differ materially from, though closely allied to fungi. We have only experience to guide us in these matters, but that is something, and we have no experience in fungi of anything like a Cladonia, however much it may resemble a Torrubia or Clavaria. We have Pezizæ with a subiculum in the section Tapesia, but the veriest tyro would not confound them with species of Parmelia. It is true that a great number of lichens, at first sight, and casually, resemble species of the Hysteriacei, but it is no less strange than true, that lichenologists and mycologists know their own sufficiently not to commit depredations on each other.
Contributions are daily being made to this controversy, and already the principal arguments on both sides have appeared in an English dress,[U] hence it will be unnecessary to repeat those which are modifications only of the views already stated, our own conclusions being capable of a very brief summary: that lichens and fungi are closely related the one to the other, but that they are not identical; that the “gonidia” of lichens are part of the lichen-organization, and consequently are not algæ, or any introduced bodies; that there is no parasitism; and that the lichen thallus, exclusive of gonidia, is wholly unknown amongst fungi.
The Rev. J. M. Crombie has therefore our sympathies in the remark with which his summary of the gonidia controversy closes, in which he characterizes it as a “sensational romance of lichenology,” of the “unnatural union between a captive algal damsel and a tyrant fungal master.”
De Bary, “Des Myxomycètes,” in “Ann. des Sci. Nat.” 4 sér. xi. p. 153; “Bot. Zeit.” xvi. p. 357. De Bary’s views are controverted by M. Wigand in “Ann. des Sci. Nat.” 4 sér. (Bot.) xvi. p. 255, &c.