LECTURE VIII 



THE TAXONOMY OF CRYPTOGAMS 



I HAVE already shown you how, owing to the researches 

 of Naegeli, De Bary, Pringsheim, and others, attention 

 had been more and more attracted to the taxonomy of 

 the Cryptogams, and more especially of the Thallophyta, 

 while the Pteridophyta, due. to Hofmeister's work, had 

 quite eclipsed the Phanerogams in importance. Within 

 the last-named group the Candollean system was still 

 accepted as the basis of classification, but attempts now 

 began to be made at formulating schemes expressing the 

 relationship and proportionate status of all groups of 

 the plant world. The first comprehensive presentation 

 of this kind was that put forward by Sachs in his text- 

 book in 1868. He divided plants into five groups, viz. 

 Thallophyta, Characeae, Muscineae, Vascular Cryptogams 

 and Phanerogams, though he admitted that the division 

 was tentative only. He made no attempt at classifying 

 Algae in detail, but, following De Bary, divided Fungi 

 into Phycomycetes, Hypodermi (our Uredineae and 

 Ustilagineae), Ascomycetes, and Basidiomycetes. The 

 Lichens, hitherto regarded as autonomous plants, had 

 by 1868 been shown to be compounds of Algae and 

 Fungi, as a result of the labours of Bornet, Baranetski, 

 and, chiefly, Schwendener. This view of their organisa- 

 tion, though at first almost fiercely opposed by pure 

 lichenologists like Crombie and Nylander, was confirmed 

 by many authors during the next decade, notably by 

 Rees, Stahl, Bonnier, and others. 



161 II 



