rufum, Fr ., 1 2 which Nylander 3 describes as a true Lichen, 
having not only an amylaceous hymenium, but gonidia under- 
neath the apothecium. But the same awkward and artifi- 
cial distinction would exclude from the Lichens all athalline — 
and consequently a-gonidic — forms, possessed, nevertheless, of 
all the other attributes of true Lichens. Moreover, it ■would 
appear that gonidia are not peculiar to Lichens, as 
contradistinguished from Fungi, for Gasparini 3 regards 
Penicillium glaucum as a gonidic form of Alternaria. My 
own opinion is that there is no boundary-line in nature be- 
tween Lichens and Fungi, and that all attempts, therefore, 
of Lichcnologists or Fungologists — of Botanists or Chemists 
— to discover any scientific means of differential diagnosis 
must prove futile. I hold that the position in classification 
of doubtful plants must be the result of a compromise or 
agreement between Lichenologists and Fungologists. 
The somewhat long list of micro-parasites after recorded 
illustrates well the tendency of Naturalists of the present day 
to distinguish what are presumed to be new forms or condi- 
tions of life by separate names, whether generic, specific, or 
varietal. There is too much of what the Germans call ex- 
pressively “ species-spielerei” — playing at species — a sort of 
pseudo-scientific recreation that Haeckel 4 compares to the 
amusement of collecting postage-stamps, or similar trifling 
— the recreation of so-called Herbarium or Parlour-botanists, 
who have had generally the most limited opportunities of 
observation, or whose minds are only able to apprehend 
minutiae, and cannot grasp generalities. Such Botanists are 
characterised in modern phraseology as “ splitters,” in con- 
tradistinction to “ lumpers” or “ dumpers j” the former 
delighting in the multiplication of minute divisions and of 
names, the latter reducing both the divisions and technical 
terms. It is unfortunate that grounds should exist for such 
a distinction of fellow-workers in all departments of science ; 
but that it does exist, and that the elaborators predominate 
largely over the generalisers, there can be no doubt. Licheno- 
logists are too much mere nomenclators rather than Biolo- 
gists — mere systematists — mere searchers for or labellers of 
forms that are “ rare” or “ new” — given to the discernment 
of minute differences rather than of general resemblances — 
mere collectors of plants and formers of herbaria. Their 
1 Vide author’s paper on Arlh. melaspermella, p. 277. 
2 ‘Flora,’ 1864, pp. 421 and 558. 
3 ‘ Ann. Nat. Ilist.,’ vol. xviii, 1866, p. 344. Vide also author’s paper 
on Arlh. melaspermella, p. 282. 
4 ‘ Gencrcllc Morphologic der Organismen,’ Berlin, 1866. 
