398 DB. LAL'DEU LIXDSAY ON THE 



just indicated; and I may go further and venture to predict that 

 when M'c possess a full and accurate knowledge, on the one hand, 

 of the Lichens of Iceland and Taro, and, on the other, of tliose of 

 Shetland, Orlmey, and the Hebrides, there will be found to he a 

 close resemblance or alliance between them. 



Of my Thorshavn collection there are twenty lichens not men- 

 tioned by Landt, and fifteen not enumerated by Trevelyan. 



As was to be expected, there is a close correspondence or re- 

 semblance between the Lichen-floras of Iceland, Faro, and Nor- 



^ 



Avay on the one hand, and of Britain on the other. It would un- 

 doubtedly be much closer, however, between that of Scotland 

 with its outlying islands the Hebrides, Orkney, and Shetland 

 and of these more northern islands or countries, had we the proper 

 means of forming a comparison. But no separate, recent, full 

 and accurate list of the lichens either of Scotland, IN'orwav, Iceland, 

 01- Eiiro lias yet been published. Of tlie whole list of my col- 



lections in Iceland, Eiiro, and iS'orway, upwards of two-thirds are 

 British. The British Lichen-flora is considerably poorer than 

 that of the Scandinavian peninsula, if we can depend on compa- 



diiferent as Mudd 



(1861) 



chenes Seandiuaviaj ' (1861), as representing Sweden and Nor- 



way * 



But in order to an accurate comparison, the lists of Scandina- 

 vian and British lichens would require to be drawn up by the same 

 author ; for no two lichenologists take the same views of species 

 and varieties, some regarding as species w^hat others consider only 

 varieties' or forms. Hence in the hands of two different authors 

 the same lichens will be very diff'erently stated numerically ; from 

 Avhicli it follows that we cannot safely contrast statistical data of 

 such a character drawn from one work with those of another. 



Proportionally or comparatively the British should be richer 



* But ill nt^ither wort, and more especially in ^"jlander's, are the species and 

 the dominant varieties distinguished or catalogued in such a way as to render it 

 possible for a reader to number them accurately. "Wliile Kylander himself 

 (Scand. p. 7) states the whole Scandinavian lichens at only US species, I &id 

 the number separately catalogued apparently as species in Ins ' Lichenes Scandi- 

 Tiaviic' to be upwards of 570, or about 130 more than his own enumeration, 

 which is presumably the more correct ; the varieties or forms he enumerate?, 

 moreover, amount to upwards of 360,--whicb gives a total of 930. A siinil^^ 

 calculation from Mudd's 'Manual' gives about 500 species and upwards of 2S0 

 varieties or forms, or a total of 780,— tliat is, less than the Scandinavian list by 

 150. But I repeat I do not consider tl>eae statistics at all to be relied upon. 



