Читать книгу Lichens - Annie Lorrain Smith - Страница 14

Table of Contents

The fine constructive work of Acharius appropriately begins a new era in the history of lichenology. Previous writers had indeed included lichens in their survey of plants, but always as a somewhat side issue. Acharius made them a subject of special study, and by his scientific system of classification raised them to the rank of the other great classes of plants.

Acharius was a country doctor at Wadstena on Lake Mälar in Sweden, as he himself calls it, “the country of lichens.” He was attracted to the study of them by their singular mode of growth and organization, both of thallus and reproductive organs, for which reason he finally judged that lichens should be considered as a distinct Order of Cryptogamia.

In his first tentative work[85] he had followed his great compatriot Linnaeus, classifying all the species known to him under the one genus Lichen, though he had progressed so far as to divide the unwieldy Genus into Families and these again into Tribes, these latter having each a tribal designation such as Verrucaria, Opegrapha, etc. He established in all twenty-eight tribes which, at a later stage, he transformed into genera after the example of Weber.

Acharius, from the beginning of his work, had allowed great importance to the structure of the apothecia as a diagnostic character though scarcely recognizing them as true fruits. He gave expression to his more mature views first in the Methodus Lichenum[86], then subsequently in the larger Lichenographia Universalia[87]. In the latter work there are forty-one genera arranged under different divisions; the species are given short and succinct descriptions, with habitat, locality and synonymy. No material alteration was made in the Synopsis Lichenum[88], a more condensed work which he published a few years later.

The Cryptogamia are divided by Acharius into six “Families,” one of which, “Lichenes,” is distinguished, he finds, by two methods of propagation: by propagula (soredia) and by spores produced in apothecia. He divides the family into classes characterized solely by fruit characters, and these again into orders, genera and species, of which diagnoses are given. With fuller knowledge many changes and rearrangements have been found necessary in the application and extension of the system, but that in no way detracts from the value of the work as a whole.

In addition to founding a scientific classification, Acharius invented a terminology for the structures peculiar to lichens. We owe to him the names and descriptions of “thallus,” “podetium,” “apothecium,” “perithecium,” “soredium,” “cyphella” and “cephalodium,” the last word however with a different meaning from the one now given to it. He proposed several others, some of which are redundant or have fallen into disuse, but many of his terms as we see have stood the test of time and have been found of service in allied branches of botany.

Lichens were studied with great zest by the men of that day. Hue[89] recalls a rather startling incident in this connection: Wahlberg, it is said, had informed Dufour that he had sent a large collection of lichens from Spain to Acharius who was so excited on receiving them, that he fell ill and died in a few days (Aug. 14th, 1819). Dufour, however, had added the comment that the illness and death might after all be merely a coincidence.

Among contemporary botanists, we find that De Candolle[90] in the volume he contributed to Lamarck’s French Flora, quotes only from the earlier work of Acharius. He had probably not then seen the Methodus, as he uses none of the new terms; the lichens of the volume are arranged under genera which are based more or less on the position of the apothecia on the thallus. Flörke[91], the next writer of consequence, frankly accepts the terminology and the new view of classification, though differing on some minor points.

Two lists of lichens, neither of particular note, were published at this time in our country: one by Hugh Davies[92] for Wales, which adheres to the Linnaean system, and the other by Forster[93] of lichens round Tonbridge. Though Forster adopts the genera of Acharius, he includes lichens among algae. A more important publication was S. F. Gray’s[94] Natural Arrangement of British Plants. Gray, who was a druggist in Walsall and afterwards a lecturer on botany in London, was only nominally[95] the author, as it was mainly the work of his son John Edward Gray[96], sometime Keeper of Zoology in the British Museum. Gray was the first to apply the principles of the Natural System of classification to British plants, but the work was opposed by British botanists of his day. The years following the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars were full of bitter feeling and of prejudice, and anything emanating, as did the Natural System, from France was rejected as unworthy of consideration.

In the Natural Arrangement, Gray followed Acharius in his treatment of lichens; but whereas Acharius, though here and there confusing fungus species with lichens, had been clear-sighted enough to avoid all intermixture of fungus genera, with the exception of one only, the sterile genus Rhizomorpha, Gray had allowed the interpolation of several, such as Hysterium, Xylaria, Hypoxylon, etc. He had also raised many of Acharius’s subgenera and divisions to the rank of genera, thus largely increasing their number. This oversplitting of well-defined genera has somewhat weakened Gray’s work and he has not received from later writers the attention he deserves.

The lichens of Hooker’s[97] Flora Scotica, which is synchronous with Gray’s work, number 195 species, an increase of about 90 for Scotland since the publication of Lightfoot’s Flora more than 40 years before. Hooker also followed Acharius in his classification of lichens both in the Flora Scotica and in the Supplement to English Botany[98], which was undertaken by the younger Sowerbys and himself. To that work Borrer (1781-1862), a keen lichenologist, supplied many new and rare lichens collected mostly in Sussex.

It is a matter of regret that Greville should have so entirely ignored lichens in his great work on Scottish Cryptogams[99]. The two species of Lichina are the only ones he figured, and these he took to be algae. He[100] was well acquainted with lichens, for in the Flora Edinensis he lists 128 species for the Edinburgh district, arranging the genera under “Lichenes” with the exception of Opegrapha and Verrucaria which are placed with the fungus genus Poronia in “Hypoxyla.” Though he cites the publications of Acharius, he does not employ his scientific terms, possibly because he was writing his diagnoses in English. Two other British works of this time still remain to be chronicled: Hooker’s[101] contributions to Smith’s English Flora and Taylor’s[102] work on lichens in Mackay’s Flora Hibernica. Through these the knowledge of the subject was very largely extended in our country.

The classification of lichens and their place in the vegetable kingdom were now firmly established on the lines laid down by Acharius. Fries[103] in his important work Lichenographia Europaea more or less followed his distinguished countryman. The uncertainty as to the position and relationship of lichens had rendered the task of systematic arrangement one of peculiar difficulty and had unduly absorbed attention; but now that a satisfactory order had been established in the chaos of forms, the way was clear for other aspects of the study. Several writers expressed their views by suggesting somewhat different methods of classification, others wrote monographs of separate groups, or genera. Fée[104] published an Essay on the Cryptogams (mostly lichens) that grew on officinal exotic barks; Flörke[105] took up the difficult genus Cladonia; Wallroth[106] also wrote on Cladonia; Delise[107] on Sticta, and Chevalier[108] published a long and elaborate account of Graphideae.

Wallroth and Meyer at this time published, simultaneously, important studies on the general morphology and physiology of lichens. Wallroth[109] had contemplated an even larger work on the Natural History of Lichens, but only two of the volumes reached publication. In the first of these he devoted much attention to the “gonidia” or “brood-cells” and established the distinction between the heteromerous and homoiomerous distribution of green cells within the thallus; he also describes with great detail the “morphosis” and “metamorphosis” of the vegetative body. In the second volume he discusses their physiology—the contents and products of the thallus, colouring, nutrition, season of development, etc.—and finally the pathology of these organisms. He made no great use of the compound microscope, and his studies were confined to phenomena that could be observed with a single lens.

Meyer’s[110] work contains a still more exact study of the anatomy and physiology of lichens; he also devotes many passages to an account of their metamorphoses, pointing out that species alter so much in varying conditions, that the same one at different stages may be placed even in different genera; he however carries his theory of metamorphosis too far and unites together widely separated plants. Meyer was the first to describe the growth of the lichen from spores, though his description is somewhat confused. Possibly the honour of having first observed their germination should be given to a later botanist, Holle[111]. The works of both Wallroth and Meyer enjoyed a great and well-merited reputation: they were standard books of consultation for many years. Koerber[112], who devoted a long treatise to the study of gonidia, confirmed Wallroth’s theories: he considered at that time that the gonidia in the soredial condition were organs of propagation.

Mention should be made here of the many able and keen collectors who, in the latter half of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, did so much to further the knowledge of lichens in the British Isles. Among the earliest of these naturalists are Richard Pulteney (1730-1801), whose collection of plants, now in the herbarium of the British Museum, includes many lichens, and Hugh Davies (1739-1821), a clergyman whose Welsh plants also form part of the Museum collection. The Rev. John Harriman (1760-1831) sent many rare plants from Egglestone in Durham to the editors of English Botany and among them were not a few lichens. Edward Forster (1765-1849) lived in Essex and collected in that county, more especially in and near Epping Forest, and another East country botanist, Dawson Turner (1775-1858), though chiefly known as an algologist, gave considerable attention to lichens. In Scotland the two most active workers were Charles Lyell (1767-1849), of Kinnordy in Forfarshire, and George Don (1798-1856), also a Forfar man. Don was a gardener and became eventually a foreman at the Chelsea Physic Garden. Sir Thomas Gage of Hengrave Hall (1781-1823) botanized chiefly in his own county of Suffolk; but most of his lichens were collected in South Ireland and are incorporated in the herbarium of the British Museum. Miss Hutchins also collected in Ireland and sent her plants for inclusion in English Botany. But in later years, the principal lichenologist connected with that great undertaking was W. Borrer, who spent his life in Sussex: he not only supplied a large number of specimens to the authors, but he himself discovered and described many new lichens.

American lichenologists were also extremely active all through this period. The comparatively few lichens of Michaux’s[113] Flora grouped under “Lichenaceae” were collected in such widely separated regions as Carolina and Canada. A few years later Mühlenberg[114] included no fewer than 184 species in his Catalogue of North American Plants. Torrey[115] and Halsey[116] botanized over a limited area near New York, and the latter, who devoted himself more especially to lichens, succeeded in recording 176 different forms, old and new. These two botanists were both indebted for help in their work to Schweinitz, a Moravian brother, who moved from one country to another, working and publishing, now in America and now in Europe. His name is however chiefly associated with fungi. Later American lichenology is nobly represented by Tuckerman[117] who issued his first work on lichens in 1839, and who continued for many years to devote himself to the subject. He followed at first the classification and nomenclature that had been adopted by Fée, but as time went on he associated himself with all that was best and most enlightened in the growing science.

Travellers and explorers in those days of high adventure were constantly sending their specimens to European botanists for examination and determination, and the knowledge of exotic lichens as of other classes of plants grew with opportunity. Among the principal home workers in foreign material, at this time, may be cited Fée[118] who described a very large series on officinal barks (Cinchona, etc.) so largely coming into use as medicines; he also took charge of the lichens in Martius’s[119] Flora of Brazil. Montagne[120] named large collections, notably those of Leprieur collected in Guiana, and Hooker[121] and Walker Arnott determined the plants collected during Captain Beechey’s voyage, which included lichens from many different regions.