His illustrations also lead us to believe that he had more or less cor- 

 rect conceptions of the spores and apothecia. It is much to be re- 

 gretted that Tournefort did not explain his illustrations more fully ; 

 to make matters worse later commentators have variously misinter- 



/ 



preted his explanations. When we consider the imperfection of the 

 magnifying lenses at that time we can not help admiring the excel- 

 lent work done by this French savant. 



Plukenet 1 and Petiver' 2 described several new species. They also 

 added some comparatively accurate illustrations. Vaillant 3 likewise 

 added a number of good illustrations, besides describing several new 

 species. New species were also described by Ray, 4 Morton 5 and 

 others. 



There were other botanists of various countries who described 

 species of lichens already known and added here and there a few 

 new ones. During this period some seventy new species were de- 

 scribed, which made in all about one hundred and twenty. 



Nothing was known concerning the physiology of these plants 

 and very little of the minute anatomy. When we consider that the 



/ V 



scientific world was already familiar with the names of R. Hook, N. 

 Grew, A. Loewenhoek, J. B. Triumfetti, and with the excellent work 

 done with the simple microscope, we feel convinced that lichens must 

 have been subject to a special neglect, leaving out of consideration 

 the really excellent work of Tournefort. 



Petiver' 5 is supposed to have given the first description of a 

 lichen from America (Sticta damaccornts] . 



III. PERIOD. 



FROM MICHELI (1729) TO WEBER (1789). 



Micheli, 7 an Italian botanist, was the first to call attention to the 

 inadequacy of grouping all lichens generically under the designation 



1 Plukenet, L. Phytographia. London. 1691. Almagestum Botanicum. Lon- 

 don. 1696. Amaltheum Botanicum. London. 1705. 



2 Petiver, J. Gazophjllaceii Naturae etArtis Decas I. -X. 1703-1719. Musci Cen- 

 turia X. London. 1695-1703. 



3 Vaillant, S. Botanicon Parisiense. Leide and Amsterdam. 1727. 



4 Raj, J. Sjnops. Meth. Stirp. Brit. London. 1690. 1696. 1724. 



5 Morton, J. Natural History of Northamptonshire. London. 1712. 

 6 Petiver, J. Pterigraphia Americana. London. 1712. 



"Micheli, P. A. Nova Plantarum Genera Juxta Tournefortii Methodum Disposita. 

 Florence. 1729. 



