n8 
FAUNA AND FLORA OF NORFOLK : LICHENS. 
In i860 was published Messrs. Henslow and Skepper’s Flora 
of Suffolk, which contains lists of the Cryptogams, doubtless 
imperfect, but still good and dependable. The lists of the 
Mosses and Lichens were, I believe, in a great measure by 
Mr. Eagle and Mr. D. Stock of Bungay. After the publication 
of the Flora, Mr. Skepper devoted much time to verifying the 
records contained in it, and in so doing added a good number 
of species to the list. I have specimens and manuscript notes 
from him, and have myself published lists of the Mosses and 
Hepatics of Suffolk in the ‘Journal of Botany’ in 1885 and 
1888, and subsequently of the Mosses of Suffolk and the 
Hepatics of Norfolk in our Transactions for 1900-1901, and 
1903-1904. 
I would now do the same for the Lichens of these two coun- 
ties. Most of the localities recorded are given by Leighton in 
his 1 Lichen Flora of Great Britain,’ and where he had himself 
seen the specimen he marks them ! which, therefore, I have 
copied ; he also records the date of the introduction of each 
species to the British Flora and gives the name of the person 
who first detected it. Many of these species were introduced 
from Norfolk or Suffolk specimens by Norfolk or Suffolk 
botanists ; where this is the case I also give the name and the 
date; the majority of these are due to Mr. Dawson Turner, 
and others to Sir James Smith, etc. This fact should, I think, 
give Norfolk botanists an interest in the list even if they 
do not study the Cryptogams. A good many additions 
were made later by Mr. Larbalestier, who in his ‘ Lichen 
Herbarium ’ has included a good number of specimens from 
Norfolk and Suffolk. In the Victoria History of Norfolk, 
Mr. Crombie has given a capital list of Norfolk Lichens to 
which, however, I can make a good number of additions both 
in species and localities. 
No corresponding recent list exists for Suffolk. I think, 
therefore, it may not be amiss to print a list for the two counties, 
and the more so as no notice of the Lichens has appeared in 
our Transactions. Another reason for a combined list is that 
many of the species are recorded in a way which does not 
distinguish between the two counties, for such a record as this 
