LICHENOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 
By Josepa A. MARTINDALE. 
The publication of Leighton’s ‘Lichen Flora of Great Britain’ has 
afforded Dr. Lindsay an opportunity to restate his opposition to what 
he terms “ the modern seers of lichenography ;” but the numerous charges 
which he brings against it, in his review of the above-named work, at 
pp. 341-348 of the last ae are either exaggerations or founded on 
misconception, while the greater part of the instances he adduces to sup- 
port his opinions seem to me singularly unfortunate, proving often the 
reverse of that for which he advances them, and, even where they show a 
blemish, the cause of it is not unfrequently quite different from that he 
eges. 
Dr. Lindsay’s chief dread in botanical matters is “extreme differen- 
tiation ;" and, in his efforts to escape from it, he runs into the opposite 
error of too great generalization. n the term, *the modern school of 
lichenographers,” this error is as evident and as great as in the charges 
which he brings against modern opinions and methods of Peer 
In truth, the systems of arrangement and the views respecting generic an 
specific charactors advocated since the jsuis of Leighton's * Angio- 
carpous Lichens,’ are extremely various ; and, if we place the views and 
opinions of such as Massolongo and Kórber at one end of the scale with 
those of Dr. Lindsay at tie other, it is not too much to say that Dr. 
Nylander and Mr. Leighton will be found midway between them. To 
write, then, of a ** modern school,” is as fallacious as it ean possibly be. 
It is by no means my intention to enter into the whole moli which 
Dr. Lindsay raises, which would require more time than I ean spare, and, 
in the majority of instances, a much more intimate paie with the 
plants in question than I possess; there are, however, certain points on 
which a few remarks seem desirable. Dr. Lindsay's chief accusation against 
modern lichenographers is that their tendency is * towards extreme “diffe- 
rentiation,” and that, “ having differentiated species and genera to a mis- 
chievously elaborate extent, accordin ng to the various character of the spo- 
- ridia, ys are being further subdivided” on characters derived from che- 
* 
mical te 
My rari in general terms is, that the de of recently ae 
Lichens, at all events belonging to the flora, is not nea 
rit 
as might be supposed from Dr. Li sina guides and that: by tar the 
greater part of them occur in those genera in which the naked-eye cha- 
racters are most minute, changeable, and unsatisfactory, and where che- 
mical tests have been least used and relied upon for the purposes of dis- 
tinction and arrangem ak 
In support of his poe that the tendency of recent authors is to 
‘Manual’ (1861), Crombie's * Lichenes Britannici ' (1870), and Leigh- 
ton's * Lichen Flora’ (1871), from which it appear that the number of 
species has increased from 439 to 781, or 793 per cent. on the earliest of 
these computations. But as a test of simplicity of piniad or of a 
tendency to multiply distinctions and names, such a mode o comparison 
N.S. VOL. I. [JANUARY 1, 1872. c 
