28 HEERE 



Gate, are to be found the dense redwood forest and the naked ocean 

 rock, the cold, foggy mountain crag and the bare, blistering expanse 

 of sand-dune, the monotonous salt marsh and the impenetrable 

 chaparral. 



The earliest collector of lichens in California was Archibald Menzies, 

 a Scotch botanist and collector, who visited the northwest coast of 

 America during the years from 1779 to 1796; in November and Decem- 

 ber, 1792, he visited San Francisco Bay, Santa Clara, and Monterey 

 and obtained specimens which were described by Acharius and also 

 supplied Tuckerman with material more than 50 years later. Charles 

 Wright, botanist of the North Pacific Expedition, collected a number 

 of lichens at various points in the peninsula in 1855 and 1856. 



The most important collections were those made by H. N. Bolander, 

 who collected over a great part of the peninsula, and in fact over most 

 of California, discovering a large number of most remarkable lichens 

 during the years from 1863 to 1875. 



Since Bolander's time no special work has been done on the lichens of 

 the Santa Cruz region, though more or less important collections were 

 made by the following: Dr. C. L. Anderson, of Santa Cruz; Dr. W. 

 G. Farlow, who published a valuable set of Californian lichens, part 

 of which were collected in the Santa Cruz mountains; Dr. L. M 

 Underwood; Dr. Marshall Howe; and C. F. Baker. 



The present paper describes 307 species and subspecies; but it is 

 believed that further investigation will raise this number very materi- 

 ally. In fact there are in the author's herbarium many specimens 

 which he has as yet been unable satisfactorily to determine in the 

 absence of authentic material for comparison, and literature which is 

 not at present accessible. 



In the matter of generic nomenclature, the treatment of the best 

 students of lichens of the present day has been followed. In the case 

 of species names the earliest recognizable name found in accessible 

 authorities has been adopted. 



Synonymy too often is the bugaboo of science, and the habit of 

 many of our most eminent lichenologists of the past, as Nylander and 

 Tuckerman, of changing names to suit their opinions, has not improved 

 matters. No scientist, however eminent, has any right to change a 

 name because it is inapplicable or denotes a character which may be 

 common to a number of species within a genus. A name should have 



