Bibliographical Notices. '2'2~ 



pem lichens. The plates in ' English Botany,' however excellent and 

 characteristic, are almost without exception void of all microscopical 

 dissections. The same remark is to be made concerning the recent 

 publication of Dietrich. Mr. Leighton has given figures of the 

 sporidia of those British Lichens which are comprised in the division 

 Angiocarpi of the immortal work of Fries on the European Lichens, and 

 has accompanied them bv descriptions and a selection of synonyms. 

 So far as we can judge, the task has been on the whole faithfully and 

 admirably executed : and if we venture to notice a few points which 

 appear capable of improvement, it is mainly with the hope that Mr. 

 Leighton and the Ray Society may take them into consideration in 

 bringing out plates and descriptions of other families of the British 

 Lichens, expectations of which are held to us in the commencement of 

 the present treatise. To proceed to the work itself. In the intro- 

 duction, Mr. Leighton gives an historical account of the attention 

 paid to the asci and sporidia by preceding lichenologists, showing 

 them to have been known even so early as the time of Micheli and 

 Dillenius, but not to have received much attention until a very recent 

 period. " The only writers who have devoted anything like atten- 

 tion to the subject," he says, " are Eschweiler and Fee" (p. 2). 

 Without in the least undervaluing the labours of the learned writers 

 here mentioned, we must remark that Mr. Leighton has, unintention- 

 ally of course, made important omissions. Dr. C. Montagne, whose 

 cosmical acpiaintance With Lichens is probably greater than that of 

 any botanist living, has rarely omitted to take notice of the forms of 

 the asci and sporidia of those lichens which he has figured and de- 

 scribed both in the 'Anuales des Sciences Naturelles,' and more 

 particularly in his magnificent ' Cryptogames de Cuba.' His ob- 

 servations have moreover in many cases been very successfully 

 applied to distinguish alh^d species which had been confounded by 

 Eschweiler or other writers. It is unnecessary, we conceive, to prove 

 this. Xor should the labours of Flotow, in various papers in German 

 Transactions, have been passed over in silence ; one at least of which 

 is exclusively devoted to this verv subject (Botanische Zeitung, 1850, 

 May 3 and May 10). 



Mr. Leighton was supplied by Mr. Borrer with the original speci- 

 mens of the Lichens figured and described in • English Botany,' with 

 many valuable notes which he has printed, and with authentic speci- 

 mens of many species described by Dr. Taylor ; as well as with various 

 rarities from other friends, particularly from the Rev. T. Salwey. So 

 far therefore as specimens of British Lichens are concerned, the pre- 

 sent work leaves little to be desired ; but we must express our regret 

 that the author did not furnish himself with the ' Lichenes Helvetici 

 Exsiccati ' of Schaerer, a work which can readily be procured, in order 

 to ascertain the identity or non-identity of Schferer's species with his 

 own (p. 78). We do trust that this defect will be remedied in Mr. 

 iiton's forthcoming treatises : if the specimens of Mougeot's and 

 Nestler's ' Stirpes Crypt. Vogeso-Rhenanse ' were likewise referred 

 to, the value of the work would be increased. The synonyms of the 

 English writers are tolerablv complete ; the foreign lichenologists 



*" 15* 



