20 



fruit in higher plants ; the spermatia were not looked upon as 

 being of any special significance in the classification of lichens. 

 The English lichenologist, Mudd, 1 emphasized the importance of the 

 spore-characters and likewise considered the spermagonia as being 

 of only secondary importance. 



At this time the arrangements proposed by Massalongo and by 

 Korber received general recognition. Now, however, appeared an 

 investigator, an able systematist, who, in a certain sense, revolution- 

 ized the classification of lichens. Nearly all previous lichenologists 

 arranged them beginning with the highest forms and working 

 toward the lowest. Nylander, 2 however, had an entirely different 

 conception of how these plants should be arranged. He believed 

 that they presented a double affinity ; on the one hand they showed 

 a close resemblance to fungi, on the other hand to algae. In his 

 system he arranged lichens beginning with those forms most 

 nearly resembling the algae, thence proceeding to the highest forms 

 as Sticta, Parmelia and allied groups. From these highest forms 

 he proceeded to the forms most nearly resembling the fungi. From 

 this it would seem that he had the first somewhat definite conception 

 of the true nature of lichens. The most remarkable thing in his sys- 

 tem is the contempt with which he treated the spore-characters in the 

 limitation of genera and tribes, restricting them to specific distinc- 

 tions. He believed that the form, structure and composition of the 

 thallus, apotheciaand spermagonia must form the generic characters. 

 Chemical reactions of the thecium, especially with iodine, were con- 

 sidered of much importance. Nylander also considered the color 

 and structure of the gonidia. He published a list of all the known 

 lichens, which included 1,348 species, 298 of which were described 

 as new. 3 



We have mentioned the leading systematists of the period. We 

 shall now hastily review the works of the leading morphologists of 

 this time. It must not, however, be forgotten that many of the sys- 

 tematists also devoted some attention to the morphology of lichens, 

 but only in so far as it was necessary to enable them to arrange the 

 plants according to some preconceived system. No advanced work 

 was done by them ; this was left to the investigators who believed 



1 Mudd, W. A Manual of British Lichens. Darlington. 1861. 



2 Nylander, W. Syn. Meth. Lichenum. Paris. 1858. 



3 Nylander, W. Enumeration g^neVale des Lichens avec l'indication sommaire de 

 leur distribution geographique. Cherbourg. 1858. 



