108 OLAF GALI.oi-. 



we may finally emerge from the systematic and synonym-chaos in 

 which \ve now find ourselves. 



The method in question involves however a certain danger, as 

 it might end in our establishing almost every individual in the 



O C7 . 



world as a distinct type. And a danger just like this can only be 

 avoided by proving once for all, at some future time, by culture- 

 experiments, how many of the types established by thorough ob- 

 servations and descriptions, are so nearly related to each other, that 

 they must be referred to the same species. 



It is clear that this "method of individuals," as I will call it, 

 will be able to revolutionize our apprehension of species, and is 

 for the time being the only way out of the difficulty. But it is 

 equally clear that such a method is not a brief a flair, which the 

 individual investigator can accomplish with regard to more than a 

 very restricted number of types. Lists of species and local floras - 

 and also the present one - must consequently still be worked out 

 according to the prevalent, old-fashioned principles, although, as I 

 have been working with them, I have gradually become convinced 

 of their drawbacks, and of how obsolete and defective they are. 



Let us therefore briefly regard these defects and the lichen- 

 synonymy, in order better to understand their nature. 



The greatest defects of the lichen-systematology lie in the fact, 

 thai the one group of investigators are greatly inclined to include 

 as many forms as possible in one large comprehensive species, while 

 others (and these the majority) are inclined to separate the species 

 into many smaller species, each with its o\vn name. In the former 

 group may be reckoned for instance Dei chin aim Bra nth in Den- 

 mark. This tendency of his to restrict the number of the species, 

 runs as a leading thread through his works on the lichens of Ice- 

 land, Greenland and Denmark, and what I cite from his works in 

 my following list will prove this in several instances. I must, how- 

 ever, acknowledge that his observations on species, and his critical 

 remarks on the "species" of other investigators, have several times 

 struck me on account of their original and clear-sighted view of 

 the relationship and genealogical affinity of the species. I am not 

 to be understood to concede that this investigator can prove, for 

 instance, that Cladonia uncialis and C. ainanrocroea (just to give one 

 single example) are really genealogically allied, whilst others classify 

 them as two distinct species; but Deichmann Branth's sug- 

 gestions regarding this point, and his many other critical remarks 



