12 



Among contemporary botanists, we find that De Candolle 1 in the volume 

 he contributed to Lamarck's French Flora, quotes only from the earlier work 

 of Acharius. He had probably not then seen the Methodus, as he uses none 

 of the new terms; the lichens of the volume are arranged under genera 

 which are based more or less on the position of the apothecia on the thallus. 

 Florke 2 , the next writer of consequence, frankly accepts the terminology 

 and the new view of classification, though differing on some minor points. 



Two lists of lichens, neither of particular note, were published at this 

 time in our country: one by Hugh Davies 3 for Wales, which adheres to the 

 Linnaean system, and the other by Forster 4 of lichens round Tonbridge. 

 Though Forster adopts the genera of Acharius, he includes lichens among 

 algae. A more important publication was S. F. Gray's 8 Natural Arrange- 

 ment of British Plants. Gray, who was a druggist in Walsall and afterwards 

 a lecturer on botany in London, was only nominally 6 the author, as it was 

 mainly the work of his son John Edward Gray 7 , sometime Keeper of Zoology 

 in the British Museum. Gray was the first to apply the principles of the 

 Natural System of classification to British plants, but the work was opposed 

 by British botanists of his day. The years following the French Revolution 

 and the Napoleonic wars were full of bitter feeling and of prejudice, and 

 anything emanating, as did the Natural System, from France was rejected 

 as unworthy of consideration. 



In the Natural Arrangement, Gray followed Acharius in his treatment 

 of lichens; but whereas Acharius, though here and there confusing fungus 

 species with lichens, had been clear-sighted enough to avoid all intermixture 

 of fungus genera, with the exception of one only, the sterile genus Rhizo- 

 morpha, Gray had allowed the interpolation of several, such as Hysterium, 

 Xylaria, Hypoxylon, etc. He had also raised many of Acharius's subgenera 

 and divisions to the rank of genera, thus largely increasing their number. 

 This oversplitting of well-defined genera has somewhat weakened Gray's 

 work and he has not received from later writers the attention he deserves. 



The lichens of Hooker's 8 Flora Scotica, which is synchronous with Gray's 

 work, number 195 species, an increase of about 90 for Scotland since the 

 publication of Lightfoot's Flora more than 40 years before. Hooker also 

 followed Acharius in his classification of lichens both in the Flora Scotica 

 and in the Supplement to English Botany*, which was undertaken by the 

 younger Sowerbys and himself. To that work Borrer (1781-1862), a keen 

 Jichenologist, supplied many new and rare lichens collected mostly in Sussex. 



It is a matter of regret that Greville should have so entirely ignored 

 lichens in his great work on Scottish Cryptogams. The two species of 



1 De Candolle 1805. a Florke 1815-1819. s Davies 1813. * Forster 1816. 3 S. F. Gray 1821. 

 8 Carrington 1870. 7 See List of the Books, etc. by John Edward Gray, p. 3, 1872. 

 8 Hooker 1821. " Hooker '1831. 10 Greville 1823-1827. 



