LICHEN-FLOKA OT XOKTIIEHN EUHOPE. 869 



ferior height to Skagstolstind, is still regarded as the monarch 

 of the Norwegian Alps), and its greater profusion of the creature 

 comforts of the traveller. I skirted tlie base of Skagstolstind, 

 the higliest mountain in Norway (SG70 feet, Keith Johnstone), 

 but had no opportunity of ascending to its summit. Inasmuch 

 as Sneehatten and Skagstolstind are at no great distance from each 

 other, while the difference in height is not material, the probability 

 IS that the lichen-flora of both is greatly the same. I crossed 

 another mountain-range, the Haalangenfjeld (3000-4000 feet), 

 between Eomsdal and Loordal, on which I made considerable 

 collections of alpine lichens. The bulk, indeed, of my Norwegian 

 lichens came from the Dovrefjeld or Haalangenfjeld, or, in other 

 words, were alpijie in their character — a peculiarity which must be 

 borne in mind in any comparison of my Norwegian list with that 

 of Iceland or Faro. To and from Jerkiu and Christiania my 

 route included the two great and beautiful valleys of Guldbrands- 

 dal and Eomsdal, the former extendinsr from Lillehammer to Laur- 

 gaard, the latter from Lie to its opening seaward at Yseblungs- 

 na?set. I visited also the environs of Christiania (the capital), the 

 northern and southern ends of the Mjosen lake, and t\\e coast-rocks 

 about Christiansand in the extreme south of NorAvay. They^o- 

 lor/ical basis of the districts visited consisted maiiJy of the rneta- 

 morphic slates, especially of mica-slate* in all its variations, with 

 its associated quartzites. So abundant frequently was the mica 

 that the slate appeared to consist wholly of this beautiful mi- 

 neral in fuliated dark masses ; occasionally its place was occu- 

 pied by talc or chlorite. Gneiss was also common, and granite, 

 with thoA'arious transition forms between gneiss and granite, less 

 so — all sometimes, like the mica-slate, largely micaceous. This 

 difference in the geological constitution of the country must also 

 be kept in mind in instituting comparisons between the lichens 



of Norway, Iceland, and Farii. 



The peculiarities of the lichen-floras of these three countries 

 ■will probably be best exhibited in the form of separate lists of the 

 lichens collected, having appended a general and comparative 

 table, Avith such commentaries as the data warrant. 



I. Iceland. 



1. E^^hche puhescens. Fr. Saxicolous. 



2. LicJiina conjlnis^ Ag. Saiicolous, common. 



* Sometimes highly ferruginous. About Christiania the representative of 

 the mica-slate is a clay (aluminous) slate, which crops out frequently on the 

 rides of the streets and roads. 



