DR LAUDER LINDSAY ON NEW LICHENICOLOUS MICRO-FUNGI. 515 



in many, I do not profess to agree with them in all, respects. When they claim 

 parasites as indubitable fungi, I have no hesitation in accepting their determina- 

 tions, as I have done {e.g.) in the case of various organisms referred by Mr Currey 

 to Torula, Cofiiothecium, and Sphceria. While agreeing with Mr Berkeley as to 

 the close alliance between the fungi and lichens,* I cannot subscribe to his views 

 of the place in classification to be assigned to various members of the group of 

 fungo-lichens.j- 



Many of the lichenicolous parasites hereinafter described belong to the Toru- 

 lacei — to the genera Torula and Coniothecium. The majority of the remainder, 

 which are confessedly most heterogeneous, I arrange provisionally under the 

 genus Microthelia, adopting this genus only in the sense elsewhere and already 

 explained. \ The parasites in question are, in a manner at least, hereinafter 

 systematically described in detail, their variations especially being made the 

 subject of exposition. But here it is desirable to make certain preliminary 

 general observations regarding the more prominent of their features 



1. Genus Torula. § 



What I hereinafter describe as T. lichenicola varies considerably in its internal 

 characters. In particular the spores are not always simple. Nevertheless all 

 the forms described appear to me to be referable to a single type or species. 

 Externally, T. lichenicola shows little diversity of form. It is black, punctiform, 

 and superficial, resembling in this respect, and apt to be confounded with, 



(a). Spermogonia and | of many lichens, especially when intermixed 



(b). Pycnidia J therewith. 



(c). Many minute parasitic lichens belonging to such genera as Verrucaria 



and Endoccocus. \\ 

 (d). Many minute parasitic fungo-lichens belonging to the provisional genus 

 Microthelia. 



* In various letters Mr Berkeley has expressed himself as follows : — " So convinced am I of 

 the near relation of lichens and fungi that in the portion of my ' Introduction to Cryptogamic 

 Botany,' which is printed, I make one division, Mycetales, to include Fungales and Lichenales" 

 (July 1856). ..." One or two Verrucaria are so near Sphceriee that it is almost impossible to 

 draw the line" (Dec. 1856). . . . " It is quite impossible to distinguish some lichens from fungi, 

 and I consider the whole series as a division of f ungate" (Feb. 1869). I hold quite as decided an 

 opinion as to the impossibility of distinguishing many lichens from many fungi; or, in other words, 

 of referring members of the group of fungo-lichens to the group of fungi rather than to the lichens! 

 But I regard any classification, which arranges lichens as a co-division with fungi of a group of 

 fungals, as imperfect, artificial, and arbitrary, excluding as it does the equally close alliance that 

 subsists between lichens and Alga. 



t His views and my objections are fully given in a subsequent part of the present memoir 

 (pp. 528-580). 



J " Otago Lich. and Fungi," p. 436; Arthonia melaspermella, p. 279. 



§ As determined by Mr Currey, who wrote me in February 1866 as to "a curious species of 

 Torula" (contained in my Herbarium) " which I do not recognise as having seen before. It is ramose, 

 with bluish or greenish-black joints, the cells of which measure from 00003 to 0005 inch." 



|| E.g. those described in Korber's " Parerga," p. 452, et seq. 



