— 69 — 
diate chemical tests altogether. Tuckerman and Willey comprise the second, 
each conceding the chemical test to be of more or less value in determining 
established species, but dissenting from the view that the establishment of 
specific botanical varieties on chemical grounds is possible without such are 
confirmed by morphological characteristics. The writer has no personal 
knowledge of the extent to which Fink and Schneider have carried their ex- 
periments with reagents. The latter indeed says that his investigations were 
pursued to a point where he was convinced of their futility, but Fink fails to 
specify. It might be assumed from the fact that neither gentleman is at all 
reserved in his statements, that they have delved deeper than did Tuckerman 
or Willey. It would be an interesting contribution to American lichenologi- 
cal literature if one or both should set forth ab initio the successive dis- 
coveries leading to their conclusions as published. 
With the guardedness which was characteristic of the man, Tuckerman, 
in the 1868 paper, after having boldly condemned chemical tests, is finally 
found to qualify his conclusions. In the concluding lines he admits that the 
“instructive application of reagents to imperfect fragments might some- 
times afford clews to affinity.” If chemical tests may be relied on in determ- 
ining fragments, it is suggestive that if the investigator were working on a 
satisfactory specimen the results might be proportionally superior. 
Dr. Th. M. Fries, whom Tuckerman quotes as offering opposition to the 
new tests, according to Leighton soon came to believe in their value, and his 
personal experiences are found incorporated in “ Lichenes Spitzbergenses,” 
and “ Lichenographia Scandinavica.” After Tuckerman’s death Willey en- 
tered into closer relations with the European lichenists. One result of his 
correspondence with Nylander may be gathered by a persusal of the notes on 
Parmelia, 1 . c. In this paper Willey states that “ there appear to be known 
about forty species ” of Parmelia in North America, as contrasted with nine- 
teen mentioned in Tuckerman’s Synopsis. He acknowledges that many of 
the new names were the result of Nylander’s examination of New Bedford 
and other material, and that the separation hinged on “chemical or other 
grounds.” The paper contains some admissions that might easily be taken 
as evidence that Willey had shaken off the mantle of conservatism and joined 
the enemy, if it were not for his explicit statement of inability to “attach 
absolute specific value ” to the chemical relations. All who have had any 
personal acquaintance with Willey will agree that if he ever attached to the 
specimens of his herbarium a name prompted by Nylander it was done with 
full knowledge of the masters’ position on the chemical phase of species 
making ; and such a course must be regarded as a tacit avowal of belief. A 
curious point may be made from Willey’s paper to illustrate the notorious 
diversity of results obtained with reagents in the hands of different experi- 
menters. Tuckerman referred to his results with various species of Parmelia 
to show their discrepancy from published findings; and Willey remarks that 
the “ reactions appear to be constant in most of the species of Parmelia,” and 
then adds that the fact “ may serve as an aid to their determination.” Here 
is a clear discordance of opinion with no explanation ready at hand. It is 
