PDF - CES (IISc)

16
HISTORY OF LICHENOLOGY
departure in lichenology. De Notaris published the results of his researches
in a fragment of a projected larger work that was never completed. Though
his views were overlooked for a time, they were at length fully recognized
and further elaborated by Massalongo 1 in Italy, by Norman 2 in Norway, by
Koerber 3 in Germany and by Mudd 4 in our own country. Massalongo had
drawn up the scheme of a great Scolia Lichenographica, but like de Notaris,
he was only able to publish a part. After twelve years of ill-health, in which
he struggled to continue his work, he died at the early age of 36.
Lindsay 5 Mudd and , Leighton 6 were at this time devoting great attention
to British lichens. Lauder Lindsay's Popular History of British Lichens,
with its coloured plates and its descriptive and economic account of these
plants has enabled many to acquire a wide knowledge of the group. Mudd's
Manual, a more complete and extremely valuable contribution to the subject,
followed entirely on the lines of Massalongo's work. From his large
in the examination of lichens he came to the conclusion that :
experience
" Of all organs furnished by a given group of plants, none offer so many
real, constant and physiological characters as the spores of lichens, for the
formation of a simple and natural classification."
Meanwhile, a contemporary writer, William Nylander, was rising into
fame. He was born at Uleaborg in Finland 7 in 1822 and became interested
in lichens very early in his career. His first post was the professorship of
botany at Helsingfors; but in 1863 he gave up his chair and removed to
Paris where he remained, except for short absences, until his death. One
of his excursions brought him to London in 1857 to examine Hooker's
herbarium. He devoted his whole life to the study of lichens, and from
1852, the date of his first lichen publication, which is an account of the lichens
of Helsingfors, to the end of his life he poured out a constant succession of
books or papers, most of them in Latin. One of his earliest works was an
he elaborated later, but which in its main
Essay on Classification 91 which
features he never altered. He relied, in his system, on the structure and form
of thallus, gonidia and fructifications, more especially on those of the
spermogonia (pycnidia), but he rejected ascospore characters except so far as
they were of use in the diagnosis of species. He failed by being too isolated
and by his unwillingness to recognize results obtained by other workers.
In 1866 he had discovered the staining reactions of potash and hypochlorite
of lime on certain thalli, and though these are at times unreliable owing to
growth conditions, etc., they have generally been of real service. Nylander,
however, never admitted any criticism of his methods; his opinions once
stated were never revised. He rejected absolutely the theory of the dual
nature of lichens propounded by Schwendener without seriously examining
1
Massalongo 1852. Norman 1852. - 3 Koerber 1855.
5
Lindsay 1856. Leighton 1851, etc.
7 See Hue 1899.
4 Mudd 1861.
8
Nylander 1854 and 1855.