THE HISTORY OF LICHENOLOGT. 6 



In a work ascribed to Solomon a large number of 

 higher plants are mentioned but not a single crypto- 

 gam. The reason why lichens should be especially 

 neglected becomes apparent when we consider that 

 with few exceptions they are not striking in size, 

 color or form, nor do they seem to possess any marked 

 useful or harmful properties. 



No historian has been able to give any reliable in- 

 formation regarding the earliest knowledge and uses 

 of lichens. Evernia furfuracea is said to have been 

 found with Egyptian mummies, where it was doubtless 

 used as packing material. There is no reason why 

 this lichen as well as others (species of JJsnea in par- 

 ticular) should not have been used for similar pur- 

 poses by the ancient peoples of northern Africa, Arabia, 

 Italy and other countries in which these plants occur 

 very plentifully. Theophrastus (371-286 B. C), a 

 pupil of Aristotle, was perhaps the first writer who 

 left any record of lichens. From his rather imperfect 

 descriptions we are led to believe that he was more 

 or less familiar with JJsnea barhata and Rocella tincU 

 oria. The former no doubt attracted attention be- 

 cause of its beard-like growth upon trees, oaks in par- 

 ticular. The latter has been long known on account 

 of its coloring properties. These two lichens were 

 also mentioned in the works of Dioscorides and 

 Pliniiis. With these exceptions, lichens received no 

 attention until the sixteenth century, when science, 

 art and literature awoke from the paralytic state into 

 which it had sunk since the first century. About the 

 middle of the sixteenth century, Ruellius, Gessner, 



