ri 
theory,” as it is called, that Lichens have no independent existence, 
but consist only of a fungus associated with an alga; and this, too, 
simply as a dogma, without having acquainted themselves with the 
arguments against it by the prominent Lichenographers of Euiope, 
and by Professor Tuckerman in this country, and without having 
made any special studies of the plants themselves, these arguments 
constitute a considerable body of literature, ot which none ot these 
professors seem to have more than a little if any knowledge. A et 
one of them has said (I quote from memory) that he knows no good 
reason why the Schwendener theory is not correct; which is certainly 
a rather remarkable statement, in view of the literature referred to. 
Another has said that I favored the theory, a statement for which he 
can find no foundation in anything I have written. I should be sorry 
to think that these professors have joined in the conspiracy of silence 
towards opposing arguments and investigations of such men as Ny- 
lander, Muller, Minks, Krempelhuber, Th. M. Fries, Tuckerman, 
and others, which my observation leads me to believe exists among 
the European advocates of the theory. The last word has certainly 
not yet been said upon it, and there are, as I have been told by a dis¬ 
tinguished European Lichenist, symptoms of a reaction against it. 
I cannot see the propriety of our botanists who publish lists of Amer¬ 
ican plants, placing Lichens among “ Pyrenomycetes,” and then ar¬ 
ranging them according to Tuckerman’s classification, inverted at 
that. This is certainly a labor-saving plan. But if Lichens, as such, 
do not exist, the plants hitherto called Lichens cannot be classified 
according to any existing Lichen system, but must find their place in 
some Fungus, Alga, or composite system. Our professors would 
have done better to hold their opinions in reserve until they had qual¬ 
ified themselves, to form such as would have had some value. 
In conclusion, 1 would recommend to some of our collectors of 
Lichens not to be too eager to exploiter others for their own personal 
advantage, or for that of scientific societies to which they mav be¬ 
long; not to steal away a correspondent’s correspondence; not to 
refuse due credit for long and laborious work gratuitously performed ; 
not to send plants for examination under false names and false desig¬ 
nations of the place where they grew; and not to acquire in Europe 
a reputation for dishonesty, which tends to throw discredit on those 
who do not pursue such methods. 
The cited rhapsody on Lichens by Ruskin, is a fine specimen of 
his brilliant rhetoric. But it does not display any intimate acquaint¬ 
ance with them, except as bits of color in a landscape, and it would 
not bear criticism from a scientific point of view. 
New Bedford, Dec. 1S92. 
