268 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
detailed account of the researches and experiments on the 
subject which he made in 1872-3. Unfortunately for himself, 
in the view of the time occupied and the pains taken, most of 
these ended in an abortive manner ; and with respect even to 
the most favourable of the results obtained, he is forced to 
acknowledge, that while they would lead him to infer the truth 
of Schwendener’s theory, they would not be wholly decisive. 
Such, then, may be regarded as a very brief outline of the 
main features of the notorious 44 Schwendenerian hypothesis,” 
and of the physiological arguments and the culture experiments 
by which it has been thought to be substantiated. We 
therefore proceed similarly to give an equally brief sketch of 
the reasons which have been adduced on the other side to show 
that it is quite untenable, having no solid foundation to rest 
upon, and no certain proofs to sustain it. As already intimated, 
it has up to the present time been universally rejected by 
lichenists. And this not because it was something novel, 
startling, and subversive, but upon other grounds which have 
appeared to them to be quite good and sufficient. Amongst 
others Nylander, Krempelhuber, Th. Fries, Muller, have given 
forth their verdict upon the subject in very decided terms, 
regarding the theory as impossible, nay, even absurd. Nor, 
indeed, was it to be expected that they would stand by cequo 
animo and see their favourite lichens ruthlessly deprived of 
their autonomous existence, and be converted, as if by the 
stroke of a magician’s wand, into a spider-like master fungus, 
and an imprisoned algal slave. Surely it must have been the 
very novelty of such a strange theory much more than the 
apparently plausible arguments by which it was supported that 
has recommended it to the acceptance of any botanist of the 
so-called 44 new school.” All the lichenists just named have 
made various contributions of greater or lesser length in 
opposition to the hypothesis, while Koerber and Tuckerman have 
also most decidedly refused to accept it, and expressed 
themselves as still continuing firmly to hold that lichens are 
independent plants. Some of the contributions referred to are 
scattered over various botanical journals, while others are con- 
tained in separate lichenological treatises. Those of Nylander 
are contained chiefly in 44 Lapp. Or.” (1866), p. 117, 44 Notula de 
Cephalodiis ;” in 44 Flora,” 1868 p. 185, 44 Circa evolutionem 
gonimicam Collemaceorum Notula ;” ibid. 1870, 44 Animadversio 
de Theoria Gronidiorum algologica;” 44 0bs. Lich. Pyr. Or.” 
(1873) p. 45, 44 Contra hypothesim parasitosam Schwendeneri- 
anam ;” and more especially in 44 Flora,” 1874, p. 56, reprinted 
with additions in 44 Grrevillea,” II. p. 145, 44 On the algo-lichen 
hypothesis, and the nutrition of lichens.” The observations of 
Krempelhuber, who enters at considerable length into the 
