British Museum (Natural History)

Bulletin of the 

British Museum (Natural History) 

Erik Acharius and his influence on 

English lichenology 

David J. Galloway 

Botany series Vol 18 No 2 28 July 1988

The Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), instituted in 1949, is issued in four 

scientific series, Botany, Entomology, Geology (incorporating Mineralogy) and Zoology, 

and an Historical series. 

Papers in the Bulletin are primarily the results of research carried out on the unique and 

ever-growing collections of the Museum, both by the scientific staff of the Museum and by 

specialists from elsewhere who make use of the Museum's resources. Many of the papers are 

works of reference that will remain indispensable for years to come. 

Parts are published at irregular intervals as they become ready, each is complete in itself, 

available separately, and individually priced. Volumes contain about 300 pages and several 

volumes may appear within a calendar year. Subscriptions may be placed for one or more of 

the series on either an Annual or Per Volume basis. Prices vary according to the contents of 

the individual parts. Orders and enquiries should be sent to: 

Publications Sales, 

British Museum (Natural History), 

Cromwell Road, 

London SW75BD, 

England. 

World List abbreviation: Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Bot.) 

British Museum (Natural History), 1988 

The Botany series is edited in the Museum's Department of Botany 

Mr J. F. M. Cannon 

Keeper of Botany: 

Editor of Bulletin : Mr 

J . R. 

Laundon 

Assistant Editors: Dr A. J. Harrington and Miss M. J. Short 

28 JUL1988 

ISBN 565 08020 2 

ISSN 0068-2292 Botany series 

VollSNo 2 pp 149-194 


Cromwell Road 

London SW7 5BD Issued 28 July 1988

JQI 

David J. Galloway 

Department of Botany, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London 

SW7 5BD 

Contents 

Synopsis 

149 

Introduction 149 

Notes on sources 150 

Lichenological links between England and Sweden 1791-1804 150 

Acharius's Methodus and its reception in England 1804-1806 163 

Acharius's gift of lichens to the Linnean Society of London 1805-1808 

The Acharius lichens in the British Museum (Natural History) (BM-ACH) 

167 

179 

191 

Acknowledgements 

Unpublished correspondence 

191 

References 192 

Synopsis 

* / 

BRITISH MUSEUM 

{NATURAL HISTORY), 

The system of lichen taxonomy devised by the Swedish botanist Erik Acharius in his Methodus qua omnes 

detectos lichenes (1803) was introduced into English lichenology by Dawson Turner and James Edward 

Smith. At the instigation of Olof Swartz in Stockholm, both Smith and Turner corresponded with Acharius 

and sent him lichens from Britain, and from British explorations in the Pacific and North America. The 

influence of Acharius and Swartz on the development of lichenology in England in the early years of the 

19th century is here traced through unpublished contemporary correspondence between Acharius and 

Swartz in Sweden, and Smith and Turner in England. The circumstances surrounding Acharius's important 

gift of lichens to the Linnean Society of London [now in the herbarium of the British Museum (Natural 

History)] are described, and a list of the lichens in BM-ACH appended. 

Introduction 

The pioneering advances in lichen taxonomy made by Erik Acharius (1757-1819) and recorded 

in his major published works, Lichenographiae suecicae prodromus (1798), Methodus qua 

omnes detectos lichenes (1803), Lichenographia universalis (1810), and Synopsis methodica 

lichenum (1814) were first adopted in England by Dawson Turner (1775-1858) and Sir James 

Edward Smith (1759-1828). Prior to Acharius's work, the majority of accounts dealing with 

British lichens (Hudson, 1762, 1778; Withering, 1776; Lightfoot, 1777; Dickson, 1785; Relhan, 

1785; Smith, 1790-1814, 1791, 1794; Sibthorp, 1794) followed Linnaeus (1753) in their use of the 

collective genus Lichen. Laundon's excellent account of William Withering's lichens (Laundon, 

1984) gives a good account of British lichenology at this period. In 1803 Acharius broke with 

Linnaean tradition, and in his Methodus he segregated the old genus Lichen into smaller 

- 1AUG*988 

PRESENTED 

0EN1RAL LIBRARY 

independent genera, thereby laying the foundations of modern lichen taxonomy (Sernander, 

1917; Vitikainen, 1976; Galloway, 1981). Lichen collections examined and annotated by 

Acharius in the preparation of his major taxonomic works thus have a fundamental importance 

in many modern taxonomic revisions. Typification and location of Acharian material is 

discussed by Tibell (1987: 257-259). 

Acharius, scientifically and geographically isolated in the small Swedish town of Vadstena 

(Ostergotland), relied mostly on his friend and colleague, Olof Swartz in Stockholm, for the 

provision of lichen specimens from foreign countries, and it was through Swartz that he first 

received English lichens from Smith, Turner, Borrer, Harriman, and Winch, as well as lichens 

Bull. Br. Mus. not. Hist. (Bot.) 18 (2): 149-194 Issued 28 July 1988

150 DAVID J. GALLOWAY 

collected by Archibald Menzies during his two circumnavigations of 1786-89 and 1791-95 

(Galloway & James, 1977; Galloway, 1986; Galloway & Groves, 1987). Olof Swartz (1760 

-1818), the leading Swedish botanist of his day, visited England in 1788 on his return from the 

West Indies (Hooker, 1840; Stearn, 1957; Stafleu, 1971) and, through his fellow countryman 

Jonas Dryander, he became well acquainted with the Banksian Herbarium and the circle of 

botanists who routinely used Sir Joseph Banks's great plant collections, scientific contacts which 

he maintained to his death in 1818. Swartz's correspondence with Menzies began in 1791 after 

his return to Stockholm (Galloway & James, 1977), and later there followed a protracted 

correspondence between Swartz, Smith, and Turner on lichenological matters. Subsequently, 

Swartz encouraged a lichenological correspondence between Acharius, Smith, and Turner, 

culminating in the election of Acharius to Foreign Membership of the Linnean Society of 

London and his gift to that Society of a named set of lichens [now in the British Museum (Natural 

History)] illustrating his taxonomic system first expounded in the Methodus and expanded in 

Lichenographia universalis. In the present paper, unpublished correspondence between Smith, 

Turner, and Swartz, and between Acharius, Smith, and Turner, is examined in an attempt to 

illustrate the impact of Acharius's taxonomic theories on the development of English lichen- 

ology in the first decade of the 19th century. In addition, the circumstances surrounding the gift 

of lichens that Acharius made to the Linnean Society are described, also from contemporary 

correspondence. 

Notes on sources 

The Acharius correspondence is held in the University Library, Uppsala, Sweden, and contains 

three letters from J. E. Smith (G 5a: 77-79) written between 1801 and 1806, and three letters 

from Dawson Turner (G 5a: 84-86) written in 1806. The Swartz correspondence is held in part in 

the Gustaf von Brinkmann Collection, Trolle Ljungby Castle, Backaskog, Sweden (copies held 

in the library of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm), and in the Library of the 

Royal Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden. In the von Brinkmann collection there are 

three letters from J. E. Smith (1800-1813), and in the main Swartz collection in the library of the 

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences there are nine letters from J. E. Smith (1791-1809), and 18 

letters from Dawson Turner (1801-1816). The correspondence of Sir James Edward Smith is 

held in the Archives of the Linnean Society of London (Dawson, 1934), and contains eight 

letters from Acharius (1799-1813), and 10 from Swartz (1795-1813). The correspondence of 

Dawson Turner is held in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge (Dawson, 1961), and 

contains five letters from Acharius (1804-1813), and 21 letters from Swartz (1802-1818). 

documents. In 

In the extracts of letters used in this account, spelling is kept as in the original 

certain cases an ordering into paragraphs has been made for ease of reading. Editorial comments 

within quotes from letters are placed in square brackets. 

Lichenological links between England and Sweden 1791-1804 

James Edward Smith, purchaser of the library and collections of Carl von Linne in 1784 and 

founder of the Linnean Society of London in 1788 (Stearn, 1988; Walker, 1988), first published 

on lichens in 1791 (Smith, 1791a). As a student in Edinburgh in 1784 he had already lectured on 

newly discovered lichens in Scotland that were not recorded in Lightfoot's Flora scotica (1777), 

demonstrating a considerable interest in, and knowledge of this plant group (Galloway, 1979). 

His correspondence with Swartz began in 1791 in the following manner: 

'I am happy that my office in the Linnean Society affords me this opportunity of assuring you of my 

respect and of expressing at the same time my regret that I was absent from England when you were 

here. It would have given me the greatest pleasure to have conversed with you on our favourite 

subject of botany, and to have rendered you any service in my power, especially to have submitted 

and which I 

to your inspection those treasures of science which good fortune has thrown in my way, 

wish to render as useful as I can. My good friend Mr. Afzelius (now in Scotland) has told me that you 

had expressed a desire of corresponding with me. Nothing will give me more pleasure, as it is the 

only amends you can make me for not having seen you. I shall be very glad if I may have any

ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 151 

duplicate specimens that may be acceptable to you, and you can doubtless enrich my herbarium very 

much in return! 

Permit me however to make one observation, which my natural frankness and love of truth will 

not allow me to conceal. I could have wished [you] had not said in the preface [to your] Prodromus 

that you had compared your specimen with the Linnean Herbarium, but rather that you had 

compared them with those of Sir J. Banks which had been compared with those of Linnaeus. This is a 

very different thing. As it stands now the world may justly wonder that you have not returned me 

any thanks, which (allow me to say) I feel conscious I should, if in England, 

deserved. The matter may easily be corrected when you publish anything else, and it is better it 

should be corrected by you than me.' (Smith, 1791ft). 

In a letter written on 21 May 1792 Smith added: 

have acted so as to have 

'I received your letter of 16 July last and, (some time ago) that of November 27. 1 beg your pardon 

for not answering them sooner, and now I can only give a hasty reply, having been ill, and obliged to 

go for some time into the country for air. I will not however omit this opportunity of saying I am 

perfectly satisfied with your explanation on the subject of my last letter, and if you explain the 

matter as you say, in your next publication it must be quite satisfactory to the public. I shall be happy 

to merit your future confidence and esteem as much as (I doubt not) you will mine. I would not have 

you rely too much on specimens named even by Linnaeus himself in his old I age. find he often made 

mistakes. I trust only to original specimens which I know , by numbers and marks to be what he had 

before him when he wrote the Species Plantarum. Young Linnaeus's authority is still worse, as he 

appears to have been oftener wrong than right in naming plants, even when he had the true 

specimens to compare with.' (Smith, 1792). 

In May 1794 Smith sent Swartz copies of his papers published in the second volume of the 

Linnean Society's Transactions and some plants from New Holland (Australia) for Swartz's 

herbarium. Swartz reciprocated with specimens from his own collections, among them several 

lichens which drew from Smith the rejoinder: 

'I am quite ashamed to find I have not written to you since May llth 1794, but I have many good 

excuses to give, having last year had very bad health, and having more writing upon my hands than I 

could well accomplish, I delayed answering your last favour, dated September 10 1795, till I should 

receive the packet you mention which I now have. I hope also you will have some indulgence for me 

when I tell you that I am just now married . . . Thank you for the lichens. The discolor agrees 

perfectly with my saturninus (for I gave Dickson the name and description) except that mine is more 

villose underneath. Yet I think they are one species. Your Lichen crassus Huds. , is right, and very 

near my chrysoleucus , yet the latter is more foliaceous, and the scutellae larger and yellower. I shall 

examine carefully if they be distinct or not. 

L. hyperboreus I thought, at first sight, the torrefactus of Lightfoot, but it is very distinct, 

especially the under side. The beautiful L. erosus is also near torrefactus, but I think distinct. L. 

pellitus is certainly polyrrhizos of Lightfoot, and velleus of Hudson; Linnaeus confounded it with his 

velleus which it is not. L. griseus is exactly the same as my plant gathered at Ermenonville (see Tour 

Vol. 1. 104), which I presume to be Vaillant's t. 21.f.l4; but upon the most careful reexamination, I 

fear it is not the real deustus of Herb. Linn., marked No. 970 of Fl. Suec. ad. 1. which is therefore an 

original specimen, and which is said to be so common in Uplandia. You I presume know this lichen. 

The Linnean specimen is in fructification. Can you send me more of it? What you have sent for 

deustus may be the same, but your specimens are larger and more dilated than the solitary one in 

H.L. The scutellae are similar. 

What you have sent for polyrrhizos Dill. and the , English writers (and which you say is sometimes 

coarsely hairy beneath) is not so, nor can I tell what it is. It is the colour of the true vellus H.L. and 

, 

Dill. tab. 82.f.5, but that is very hairy beneath. Can it be that? L. hirsutus Act. Holm, is certainly 

Dill. fig. 117, as I have seen at Oxford, and I have it in H.L. marked polyrrhizos, but in Ehrhart's 

writing, consequently no original authority. Yet I know nothing else that can be polyrrhizos Linn. 

From what I have seen in Switzerland I suspect this and the true velleus may be varieties of each 

other. I will shew Dickson your Lichen membranaceus when I see him next and tell you what he says. 

Dr. Acharius appears to be (as you say) a most accurate botanist. Your countrymen are (without 

on Wulfen's lichens 

any compliment) the most acute of all people. Your observations on my paper 

are, I dare say, very just. I shall profit of them when I have an opportunity ... I cannot find the 

favoured me with . . . ask for Lichen exasperatus 

promised Lichen Westringii among those you You 

Lightf. What is it?' (Smith, 1796a).


The discussion between Smith and Swartz on the Swedish lichens sent to London continued six 

months later: 

'I now sit down to answer your letter of June 6 ... Never make any apology for enquiring or asking 

me for any thing in my power. I wish to be useful to those who really promote science, and shall 

always be happy to serve you. I send you such a morsel as I could take off from Linnaeus's original 

little specimens of Bryum vividulum - it is quite different from any of those enclosed in your letter 

. . . As to Lichen polyrrhizos of our English writers which is Dill. t.30.f.!30, you may be positively 

assured it is exactly the same as Lichen pellitus of Acharius which you sent me. I have no English 

specimen at hand to spare, or I would send it to you, but you have no occasion for it. I have one 

specimen from Scotland in fructification, which is very much convoluted like a Madrepora 

labarynthiformis (I think it is called), as in the figure in your Acta. I am very sorry I cannot find a bit 

of Lichen torrefactus to send you now, but I think I have some among my Scotch plants somewhere - 

when I find it you shall have it. It seems to me much more foliaceous and complicated beneath than 

L. hyperboreus Acharii, which is quite simple ... I shall be extremely obliged to you at any time for 

any new or rare Cryptogamia, especially such as are described in your Stockholm Transactions. I 

to receive the continuation of that work . . Your Lichen erosus is very distinct from 

long . 

Lightfoot's torrefactus. Whatever Schrader's may be ... 

Our Linnean Society flourishes much, as you will see by the list enclosed ... I am going to reside 

at Norwich where all my relations live, and where I hope to be more master of my time than I can be 

here. I can be in London at any time in 15 hours, and I shall spend some months there every winter. I 

shall also continue my lectures at Guy's Hospital . . . Please to observe my name is James Edward, it 

is printed by mistake John in the Stockholm Trans. 

has one of that name 

I had called this New Holland plant Acharia, but finding Professor Thunberg 

in his Prodromus, I have changed mine to Westringia; Mr. Westring seems by his paper highly 

deserving. Pray express the title of his dissertation properly in my paper - 1 did not know well how to 

do it. I am the author of - 

Sowerby's English Botany entirely and have put my name to the fourth 

volume - it sells very much . . . Adieu my good friend - let me hear from you soon ... I am 

preparing a Florula of New South Wales.' (Smith, 1796b). 

On 18 July 1799 Acharius first wrote (in Latin) to Smith offering him a copy of his Lichenographiae 

suecicae prodromus for the Linnean Society Library (Figs 1, 2). On 10 February 1800 

Smith wrote to Swartz: 

Upon 

'I have not yet received a work of Mr. Acharius on Lichens which he sent long ago by Hamburg I 

believe ... I have several fasciculi of Sowerby's Fungi to send you when the season of the year will 

admit. I have been of late a very negligent correspondent to you and many other friends, because I 

have worked so hard at my Flora Britannica, and have had too much writing on my hands besides 

other business. My flora is now printed as far as Monoecia (Carex) and I am busy writing the 

Cryptogamia. You perhaps have not heard of another much greater (though perhaps not more 

difficult) work I have lately undertaken, the Flora Graeca. All Dr. Sibthorp's collection of specimens 

and near 1000 very fine drawings are put into my hands by his executors and the University of 

Oxford. I am to make the descriptions, fix the names, and digest the information contained in his 

Journal. The work will consist of 10 folio volumes of 100 coloured plates each, in the style of 

Jacquin's Flora Austriaca, but much better done. There is also to be a Prodromus in 8vo. The 

drawings are so very fine we can hardly find artists to colour the plates well enough to be compared 

with them. I received very safe your letter of October 1798 and a valuable parcel of Cryptogamia, 

particularly useful to me just now . . . 

I could not have thought before I began, there had been so much to do in the Flora 

Britannica. ... I wish my Fl. Brit, may not disappoint you. If I had none but such partial and 

intelligent friends as you to judge it, I should not be so afraid, because you would know the 

difficulties I had to surmount.' (Smith, 1800a). 

the arrival in Norwich of Acharius's work on Swedish lichens Smith wrote to Swartz: 

'I shall be greatly obliged to you for specimens of your new discoveries - especially in the 

Cryptogamia. I long for Lichen Dillenianus of Acharius. Will you be so good as to inform Dr. 

Acharius that I have received his most excellent book, though a long while (almost a year I believe) 

after his letter, and having of late been much from home, I have had but little time to study his work. 

I therefore postpone writing to him till I can collect all the queries and remarks I have to offer, as 

well as make out a list of my desiderata. I shall then communicate to him in form the thanks of the


' / , '/in i/\ i- f srnf* t*


LICHENOGRAPHIAE 

Fig. 2 Acharius's dedication to J. E. Smith on the fly leaf of Lichenographiae . . . Library, Linnean 

Society of London. 

In 1800, Dawson Turner, who had become interested in lichens after reading Acharius's 

Lichenographiae suecicae prodromus sent a letter to Acharius through J. E. Smith, but because 

of political difficulties existing between Britain and Sweden at that time, normal correspondence 

between the two countries was not able to be resumed until one year later. Turner began his 

correspondence with Swartz: 

'It is now almost a year since, attracted by Dr Acharius's valuable publication upon the lichens, I


took the liberty of addressing to him a letter, which I entrusted to our mutual friend, Dr Smith, and I 

am concerned to find that from the compleasant [sic] situation of public affairs between our two 

kingdoms, he was not able to forward it till a few weeks ago. I also consulted him upon the propriety 

of troubling you with a letter, and, emboldened by his assurance that you will not consider my so 

doing as a piece of impertinence, I venture to write to you for the purpose of proposing, if it be not 

disagreeable to you, occasionally to interchange our sentiments upon Botanical subjects, and supply 

each other with the vegetable productions of our separate countries. I am well aware that, in making 

such a proposition, I have very little indeed to offer compared with what I may hope to receive from 

your liberality; but, being urged by an unbounded zeal for the promotion of our favourite science, 

and being in correspondence as well with almost all the celebrated British Botanists, as with Dr 

Schreber, Dr Roth, Dr Schrader, and Dr Esper in I Germany, would fain flatter myself that, like the 

mouse with the lion in the fable, I may be able occasionally to render you some service. 

My studies have of late been principally directed to the Musci and Algae, among the latter of 

which, especially the Fuci, Ulvae, and Confervae, my collection is very extensive, and I shall have 

infinite pleasure in supplying you with any that may be wanting to your herbarium. 

Of lichens and mosses I can offer you almost all the British species, but I have hitherto had very 

little opportunity of acquiring any not natives of this Island, and shall be particularly thankful for 

whatever specimens you can spare of Swedish or American Lichens, or of the mosses described in 

be not 

your beautiful little publication ... I shall now add no more, except that, if my proposal 

unpleasant to you, and if you will have the goodness to send me a parcel of any, not gathered in 

Britain, of submerged algae, Lichens, Jungermanniae, or Mosses (no matter how common, for all 

plants natives of distant countries have slight shades of difference from soil, climate etc) addressed 

to the care of our friends, Sir Joseph Banks, or Dr Smith, and will at the same time favour me with a 

letter by post containing a list of your desiderata, and mentioning how I can most effectually serve 

you, it will give me exceeding pleasure to take every opportunity in my power of having the respect I 

entertain for so deservedly eminent a naturalist, and the high esteem with which I now have the 

honour of subscribing myself.' (Turner, 1801). 

In November 1801, Swartz sent notice to Smith: 

'I intend with these lines to inform you that I have just sent of [sic] for England to the care of Sir 

Joseph Banks and Mr Dryander, two parcels containing the one some specimens of Lichens from Dr 

Acharius, to which I have put some few, that he could not afford.' (Swartz, 

In December of the same year Smith wrote (in Latin) to Acharius, sending a collection of 

lichens, and outlining his own manuscript diagnoses of those he considered new. Among these 

were five lichens collected by Archibald Menzies from New Year's Harbour, Staten Land, and 

from British Columbia in 1787 while he was surgeon on Captain Colnett's ship, the Prince of 

Wales. Smith described Menzies' newly discovered lichens thus: 

'205 Lichen intestinalis MSS [= Hypogymnia enteromorpha (Ach.) Nyl.] membranaceus 

subimbricatus glaber albus lobatus obtusus ventricoso inflatus subtus ater scutellis badiis 

integerrimis. Ad Americae borealis oras occidentalis. D. Archibaldus Menzies 

Lichen cincinnatus MSS [= Menegazzia cincinnata (Ach.) Bitter] membranaceus gyroso: 

subimbricatus glaber albus lobatus obtusus inflatus subtus ater scutellis badiis crenatis. Ad Fretum 

Magellanicum D. Menzies. A praecedente distinctissimus. 

Lichen duplicates MSS [= Hypogymnia duplicata (Ach.) Rassad.] membranaceus laxus glaber albus 

multifida: ramosus linearis inflatus subtus ater, scutellis (ignota). Ad oras occidentalis. Amer. 

borealis D. menzies. 

253 Lichen menziesiiMSS [= Leptogium menziesii (Ach.) Mont.] gelatinosus membranaceus 

fusco-virens subtus tomentoso-albus; foliolis rotundatis planis scutellis pedunculatis campanulatis 

rubris. Ad Fretum Magellanicum, D. Menzies. 

270 Lichen cellulosus MSS [= Nephroma cellulosum (Ach.) Ach.] coriaceus expansus virescens 

reticulate: cellulosus, subtus avenius bullatus albus, peltis marginalibus posticis rubris. Ad Fretum 

Magellanicum. D. Menzies -parva species. [Fig. 3] 

276 Lichen obvolutus MSS [= Pseudocyphellaria obvoluta (Ach.) Malme] subcoriaceus undique 

tomentosus cinereo-fuscus, foliis adscendentibus rotundatis emarginatis, scutellis submarginalibus 

concavis rufis. In ramis Berberidis ilicifoliae. Ad Fretum Magellanicum. D. Menzies.' (Smith, 

1801) (Fig. 4). 

These descriptions were later published almost without alteration by Acharius in his Methodus


f,!ii,ki rfl*. Svet. . 

Habitat in collibus nsmorofu umbrofis luprt 

terram. 

Obf. L. canino tf- L. rufefcente '' < * 

{ MM httii* J hn & L. fcuuio Avtrjmi. 

if. t, Peliit mf'fimlilia ftjlkii. 

270. LiCHits pltrii 

coriaccus expanfut piUHo 

virfkens fubtus aveniu* id balin nigricans , 

foiiis rotundatis lobatis; 

in lobis clon- 

peltis 

gatis 

ailicendcntibus terminahbui m- 

pollicis 

xicnis coccineis, 

P,lt,Jt uUrn. Svet. Pilfl'f. 

Lich-n atdicus Lim. Kt. Pr. ^. Hiffl. Lil- 

G. MB. Giael. 

jttl. Sylt. Linn. 

Liciien antarakus Lm. ]*c,urn. '*//; ap Jacq. Af.? Afw 

rr ! J roJr. /^{. Rtth. 1'cnt. Gw/. Sy[L 

Linn. 

Lichen nivalit var. /3 I.riis Tr*. Spicil. 

i'l. IJch. 

Squaraarij junipcrin* Hffm. 

Ixjbaru junipcrina Wefai. Df.it. Fl. 

Icon. Hft. 11, Lic!> I'. 7. f 2. f;*"/ En. 

Lkh. T. iz f. i. Ft, Dlii. drprcsl* 

complica'is ii leqinLifr laciniaiis margins adfcenricmibot 

piilvcrulcnrlt navis r unis, 

FUfiuiu fii't'i. Svet. Gr**rmUf. 

Lichrn pinaftri Self. Dicti. SchrtA, Spic. Gmtl. 

' 

Syft. Linn. 

Squmirh pmaHri ;/.f*. PL Lich. 

l.'(batb pinaftri f/',f*. Deut. Fl. 

Icon. 

Fig. 4 J. E. Smith's description of Lichen obvolutus in his annotated copy of Lichenographiae 

Library, Linnean Society of London.


(1803), including Smith's incorrect designation of Staten Land as 'Ad Fretum Magellanicum', an 

error which has been a source of confusion to later authors attempting to typify Acharian taxa 

with Menzies' specimens (see J0rgensen, 1975; Galloway, 1986). After receiving his first parcel 

of lichens from Sweden, Smith wrote to Swartz: 

'How can I sufficiently thank you, my dear friend, for your favours to me? This week Sir Joseph 

Banks has sent me your's and Dr. Acharius's most valuable parcels, and although I have as yet not 

had time to study a quarter of their contents, I will not wait one post day to thank you for them . . . 

My last letter to you was on the 16th of August last, in answer to yours of February 2, accompanying 

two fasciculi of . . . Sowerby's Fungi Also a parcel of Lichens for Dr. Acharius, upon which I 

anxiously wait for his opinion. The packet was entrusted to Dryander to forward to Sweden. I have 

never heard any thing of the letter or packet of Cryptogamia you sent me by 2 American gentlemen! 

So much the worse for me! . . . 

A word or two on Lichens. What you have now sent me as Urceolaria gibbosa I formerly had from 

you by the name of "L. cinereus versus Linnaei" and you desired me to observe the black margin of 

the crust, mentioned in Sp. PI. Nevertheless, I presume the cinereus of Acharius, p. 32, is different 

from his gibbosus, and may be the same as his multipunctatus , which I have taken for the true 

cinereus in Engl. Bot. v. 12. t. 820. His true L. cartilagineus is quite new to me. Pray tell Dr. 

Acharius I received his parcel, and thank him for it with all my heart. I will, as the spring advances, 

send him a few things that I hope may be acceptable. I wrote him a letter lately full of differentiae 

specificae of new Lichens (as I supposed), I shall not write again till I have examined his specimens 

thoroughly. In the meantime I beg you to tell him I find his lepadinus is my inclusus*, Engl. Bot. t. 

678, as I guessed. The little morsel he sent marked "L. pallescens versus Linn." is precisely what I 

have found in Wales, and have sent him (No 7), and which I take from the figure and description in 

Jacq. Collectanea, to be albo-flavescens of Wulfen. What Acharius sends me as his own pallescens, I 

think a different species, and more akin (as he says) toparellus and upsaliensis. The true Linnean L. 

calcareus from the walls of Upsal. , is very near (if not the same) to my tessellatus Engl. Bot. v. 8. t. 

533. [Fig. 5] Mine only is rather larger in all its parts. But I shall give them a more careful 

examination hereafter. 

My Lichen inquinans, Engl. Bot. v. 12. t. 810. 1 find to be his clavellus, p. 83, but I doubt some of 

the synonyms, especially Dill. 1. 14. f. 3. His dispersus is exactly the crenulatus of Dickson, which the 

latter has not well described in his Fasciculi: The 4th fasciculus of Dickson is just published. It 

contains many new things, but has some inaccuracies, as all such works must have. I am now busy in 

finally settling the Musci and Lichenes of Flora Britannica, and your specimens are doubly valuable 

to me ... I will send you and Dr. Acharius something this spring.' (Smith, 1802). 

Dawson Turner too had received an answer from Swartz and a share in the parcel of lichens 

posted to Banks. In reply he wrote: 

'I received with particular pleasure, and felt myself much honored [sic] by your obliging letter, 

which, however, I deferred answering till the parcel you were so good as to destine for me arrived, 

and my patience, never very great, was well nigh quite exhausted, when the kindness of Sir Jos. 

Banks forwarded it to me a few days ago. You may judge of the eagerness with which I opened it, 

and I assure you that my expectations were not small, but they were far surpassed by the riches that I 

found, and I cannot sufficiently thank you for the immense addition that you have made to my 

herbarium . . . 

As for British Mosses, I believe I shall be able to send the greater part of your desiderata, but you, 

who have been in this country, know that these plants are almost exclusively in the hands of Mr 

Dickson, who dispenses them very sparingly, and gives, to use his own expression, specimens "only 

just good enough to swear by". As I live in the most level part of England where but few of them are 

found, this must be my apology, if I should be unable to furnish all you want, or if my specimens 

should be indifferent. In Lichens I trust I shall prove myself not an unworthy correspondent, and I 

must by the favour of you, as soon as you have leisure, to send me as many of your Swedish and 

Indian species, as you can conveniently spare from your more deserving friends.' (Turner, 1802a). 

Shortly afterwards Turner sent Swartz a first parcel of English lichens noting: 

'. . . many 

of the inclosed Lichens are common, but will serve to ascertain what English authors 

of this 

have intended, and, if you do not object, I would propose to you to exchange every species 

* see Bailey & James (1977).


60. 

mtt tin tut in iffunit Jrfrt-fi, imamrgiutiii & 

gi*t / < fr*/t* frtvfii-mtt , f /? (,,nn i at, 

he Vf": fcmellti demam mt}ntlm t frimum /t) ^ < 

ttfin & fruimtft. 

* IO. ScmtSit trrit. 

Iiy. LICHFN t*lt*ri*t cro^arws rimolV) nrrnla- 

tus lubpalvi-rul nu.s albis.'imns : ici'trll's de- 

Lichen calcaitus LI***I! 

Hahitst inftxis pri'ipur cijri;


Dublin, at whose house I visited, and who was to have accompanied me, was in such indifferent 

health that he was unable to undertake the journey, and persuaded me to continue in the 

metropolis. On these accounts this part of my tour was very unproductive in point of natural history, 

but, from what little I saw in the environs of Dublin, I am convinced that the muscologia of Ireland 

would, if examined by a botanist as skilful and accurate as you are, bid fair to rival yours of Sweden 

and Lapland, such continual rain falls in every part of the country, and it is composed of such a series 

of old woods, rocky mountains, lakes, and dep dells. I gathered at one place several species, among 

which I expect to find one or two nondescripts, but at present I have not had time to look at any. 

When I have, you may depend upon it that I will carefully lay by for you whatever is worth your 

acceptance. The Botanic Garden at Glasnevin, near Dublin, far exceeds in magnificence anything of 

the kind in Britain. It contains 27 English acres, besides a fine house for the Professor (who has a 

salary of 300 per annum and an additional 100 for travelling expenses) and 5 hothouses and 

greenhouses, about 60 feet long, 23 wide, and 25 high. At present however it is only in its infancy, 

and not well filled, but the gardener, Mr Underwood, is a pupil of the late Mr Curtis', and bids fair 

to bring it to great perfection. 

In Wales I was more fortunate in point of botany, but terribly unlucky as to weather, for when I 

climbed the famous mountain, called Snowdon, the highest in the principality, I was above half the 

way so immersed in the clouds, that I could see nothing on either side of me. I nevertheless brought 

home a pretty good collection of many British Alpine plants, and, what was of more consequence, 

confirmed my acquaintance with Rev. Hugh Davies, and Mr Griffith, so that I shall have no 

difficulty in hereafter procuring any of the productions of that country. 

I have written thus much entirely about myself, not only under the hope that the subject will be 

interesting to you, but to shew that I wish you to do the same in return, and I therefore hope you will 

regard it as an example, by acquainting me with any excursions you make, or any particulars of the 

natural history etc of your country . . . I am about to apply myself closely to the Ulvae and Lichens, 

under the hopes that I may possibly at some future day write a Lichenographia Britannica. My 

Ulvographia, I trust, will be ready next year, with figures of every known species. Would it be 

possible for me to obtain the honour of admission into your celebrated Academy? I ask as a stranger 

and as one who is aware that he has little claim to such a distinction. Pray do not fail to let me hear 

from you immediately.' (Turner, 1802c). 

Swartz replied warmly to Turner: 

'You have obliged me very much by the communication of the Scientifical News. I am very glad to 

receive them. We are by far not so productive in this corner. My friend Acharius works upon his 

Lichenographia, which I dare say will afford [a] good deal of amusing instruction to the reader. It is 

to be printed soon and contains everything that has come to the knowledge of the indefatigible 

observer.' (Swartz, 1802J). 

The same day Swartz wrote also to Smith informing him: 

soon. He has told me 

'Acharius works upon his Lichenographia, and I think the printing will begin 

to be very anxious to get some information from specimens you may perhaps have promised him. 

This work will be very good.' (Swartz, 1802d). 

The following month (October) Swartz sent to Smith a further parcel of lichens with the 

message: 

'some lichens and some other plants . . . you'll find also a pack . 

from our friend Acharius 

Acharius is sorry that he did not get before winter what you had sent him. Probably it is in London 

still remaining. His Methodus Lichenum is now printing. A very good work indeed.' (Swartz, 1802e). 

Meanwhile the parcel of lichens that Dawson Turner had sent to Sweden earlier in the year had 

not reached its destination, a circumstance Turner regretted in a letter to Swartz: 

The pleasure, which your obliging letter of the 10th September gave me, was, I am sorry to say, 

sadly damped by the information that neither the parcel I sent to you through the medium of Mr 

Dryander on the 12th April, nor the copy of my Synopsis, which I afterwards trusted for you to a 

London Merchant, had yet reached your hands. The loss of the latter would be of no consequence, 

as I can immediately replace it, and will do so with great pleasure, if it have not yet found you: about 

the parcel I must own I feel anxious, for it contained most of my rarest British Fuci, several lichens, 

among which were some from Dickson himself ... I am therefore fearful that its non arrival may 

cause you some inconvenience. It contained likewise a letter, proposing you to exchange every 

. .


.-. 


-.. 

/- ^.V^-. 

;r/:A 

/,_...,. . 

/ 


SUPPLEMENTUM 

NOVAS DESCRIP 

SPECIES QUAMPLURES 

TAS NEC NON OBSERVAT1ONES VAJUAS 

COMPLECTENS, 

QDOO 

PRAEVIAE SUAE. 

METHODO LICHENUM 

ADIVKXI* 

A V C T O R 

Fig. 8 Title of Supplement to Methodus . . . The Rev. John Harriman's copy. Library, Linnean Society of 

London. 

indubitable, and I give you here a succinct explanation as he has found the sundry species. He has 

lately published his new Methodus Lichenum in which he has himself by this communication 

detected some errors. You may probably desire to enter upon an epistolary interchange with him, as 

well in behalf of particular specimens, as an account of various elucidations, which he certainly 

might be able to give. In the mean time he begs to be remembered to you. If you write to him, the 

letters may be addressed by the way of Hamburg or Gottenburg to - Professor Dr E. Acharius. 

Wadstena. Sweden.' (Swartz, 18036).


Because of difficulties in the passage of mail between Britain and Sweden, Dawson Turner did 

not receive Swartz's letter for eight months. Meanwhile he wrote to Swartz: 

'I must thank you for endeavouring to get me some lichens from Dr Acharius. I should be glad if you 

would ask that gentleman whether he ever received a letter I wrote him 3 or 4 years ago, and 

inclosed in a parcel from Dr Smith. I have often thought it unhandsome that he did not answer it, 

it never reached him 

but, from something I lately heard, I suspect . 

. . I am sorry I am not able to say 

anything about the opinions you were so good as to give me of the Lichens I sent, as I have not yet 

been able to get Dr Acharius' Dispositio. I believe there are but two copies in England, one Dr 

Smith has, which he will lend me as soon as I am ready to use it, another Mr Winch of Newcastle 

writes me that he has. I hope soon to receive from you a parcel of Lichens, for I am exceedingly fond 

of the genus; and I doubt not but by the time they arrive my bookseller will have procured me the 

work. Dr Smith is quite well; his third vol. will be published in a few days, after which he 

immediately applies to the Flora Graeca. Mr Lambert's splendid monograph of the Genus Pinus has 

appeared, but I have not yet seen it. I understand a coloured copy costs 40 guineas, which is a most 

absurd price. Sir Jos. Banks has been ill very with the gout, but I had a letter from him a few days 

since, in which he says he is better. He is going to adopt a milk diet, from which, if his constitution 

will support the change, he promises himself great benefit. I hope God will prolong a life, so 

interesting to all science, and to all the civilised world ... It would give me great oleasure to enter 

into a literary correspondence with Dr Acharius, which I would thank you to tell him, and give him 

my address. All is quiet in England, and at this time but little afraid of Invasion. Should the French 

come, they will find things more prepared to receive them than they expect.' (Turner, 18046). 

In May 1804 Turner wrote again to Swartz: 

'It is such an age since I had the pleasure of receiving a single line from you, that I cannot help 

feeling myself both surprized and vexed; nor can I avoid entertaining apprehensions lest some illness 

or unpleasant occurrence should have caused your unusual silence. I trust you have long since 

received a letter, which I wrote you on the 2nd February, and upon the proper arrival of which I 

should not entertain the least doubts, had I not by the same mail written to my friend, Mertens, from 

whom also I have yet received no answer. In case that letter miscarried, pray have the goodness to 

let me know; for it contained some information on the subject of Mosses, which I wish not to be lost, 

and which I would send again at some future opportunity: it thanked you too for your offer of 

introducing me to your friend, Dr Acharius, and said how happy I should be to enjoy the 

correspondence of so able a Botanist. From the unfortunate interruption to our communication with 

Germany, occasioned by the stoppage of the Elbe, his Methodus has not yet found its way to our 

English booksellers, nor have I had any opportunity of examining it, but Dr Smith, who went to 

London two days ago, has just sent me his copy to keep during his absence, so that I promise myself 

in a day or two a rich botanical treat . . . The 

first part of the Flora Graeca may now very soon be 

expected; and a new work, to be edited by Mr Konig who lives with Sir Joseph Banks, to be called 

Annals of Botany, and to appear quarterly: it will much resemble Dr Schrader's Journal . . . Can 

you favour me in your next letter with specimens of Lichen sylvaticus in fruit, sarmentosus with 

shields, arcticus, muricatus, and divergensl My desiderata from Acharius's Methodus are 

numberless, but I have many species which he has not included. I hope however, many weeks will 

not pass before I receive from you a large parcel of your Lichens, especially the crustaceous kinds. I 

mean to go to Wales in June, and then shall to be able to repay you.' (Turner, 1804c). 

Shortly afterwards, Swartz was able to assure Turner of Acharius's willingness to correspond 

with him: 

'Dr Acharius will also estimate himself happy of your acquaintance, and would have written long 

since if not a domestic calamity had befallen him, poor friend he lately lost him a kind wife! I now 

write to him to salute him on your part. He never got any letters from you. In the copy of his 

Methodus which you got from Dr Smith the I supplement suppose is still wanting. It was afterwards 

printed in Liepzig, and could accordingly not be sent at the same time. It contains mostly new 

species discovered by Wahlenberg.' (Swartz, 1804o). 

Acharius's Methodus and its reception in England 1804-1806 

At the time of publication of the Methodus, Smith and Turner were among the most active 

lichenologists in England and both, using Swartz as a catalyst, had established a correspondence


with Acharius at Vadstena, regularly sending him specimens. Smith, the more conservative 

lichenologist of the two (he never completely dissociated himself from the use of the genus 

Lichen), first received Acharius's book and wrote to its author on 24 April 1804: 

'Dr. Swartz tells me you understand English perfectly* and therefore I shall indulge my indolence in 

writing in my own language, only requesting you to continue to write in Latin if you please. I am in 

your debt for three very kind letters dated 8 December 1802, 28 April and 12 November 1803 [this 

last is not preserved in the Smith correspondence in the Linnean Society of London's archives]. I 

have also received a valuable parcel of lichens and Mosses, as mentioned in your first letter. For all 

these, as well as for your Methodus Lichenum, which I have eagerly studied, accept my best thanks. 

I am very sorry my first parcel did not reach you. The times are unfavourable for communication. 

There were not (however) any South Sea plants in that parcel, only European Lichens - and I am 

leave to make a few 

glad you received my second parcel, which was of more consequence. I beg 

remarks in reply to yours upon my specimens. In the parcel I am now preparing for you I enclose 

more specimens of Lichen conspurcatus Engl. Bot. t. 964. 1 think they will prove it be of a distinct 

species of Lecidea. I have traced its scutellae through their whole growth and they are quite distinct 

from my corpora parasitica. I beg however, you will never pay any regard to my opinion in this or 

other matters than you find it deserves. Correct me freely when I deserve it. 

Lichen I duplicatus cannot help thinking very distinct from physodes [Fig. 9]. Mr. Menzies thinks 

it indeed may be a variety of enteromorpha, of which I now send you a good specimen. Pray observe 

the scutellae turbinatae . . . 

I write this letter a day or two before my departure for London and shall take with me a parcel for 

you containing some New Holland specimens, which I hope will please you and a very few new or 

curious Lichens, on which I beg your opinion. I shall also send you the 3rd volume of my Flora 

Britannica. Do you want the first and second? In my 4th volume I shall profit much by your learned 

S3 PARMELIA. Pfyscia. 

divaricatis subimbricatis sinuato - multifidU; 

scutellis cyathiformibus 

obscure fuscis demum 

dilatatis, infiexo crenulato. 

margine 

Lichen colpodet 

Lich. Pr. p. 124. 

Habitat ad cort. arbormn Nov. Angliae in A. 

merica. SWARTZ. 

O4*. Laciniz non pertusz ut in Parmelia diatry. 

fd, Deque propagulis vtl sorediis adspersz vixrjue 

apice inflate. Color thalli supra 8c infra etiam 

differt, ut fc scutellarum. Hx vetustz amplae fle 

xuosz nigro-fuscjc, margine vel infiexo sulnategro 

vel expanse crenulato. 

170. PARMELIA cinclnnata: thallo membraruceo 

glabro albo subtut atro, laciniis gyroso-subimbricatis 

lobatii obtusis infLitis; scutellis ba- 

cliis crenatis. -f 

Lichen cincinnatut D. J. E. SMITH. Msc. 

Habitat ad Fretum Magelianicum. D. MENZIES. 

O.'s. A Parmelia enttromorpha distindi species. 

SMITH in Litt. 

Syi. PARMELIA enteromorpha: thallo membranaceo 

rlibro *!bo subtus atro, laciniis subimbricatis 

lobatis obtusis ventricoso - inflatis ; scu- 

tellis Ladiis mtegerrimis. 4 

Lichen ititcttinalis D. J. E. SMITH. Msc. 

Habitat ad America: borealis oras occid. D. 

MENZIES. 

173. PARMELIA thallo znembranacco 

duplicata: 

laxo ghbro albo subttis atro, laciniis multtfjdo-ramosis 

linearibus inflatis. (Apothccia i- 

gnota) 4 

Lichen duplicatut D. SMITH. Msc. 

Habitat ad oras occid. America: borcalis. D- 

MEKZIES. 

Fig. 9 I.E. Smith's annotated copy of Methodus . . . Library, Linnean Society of London. 

* In a postscript to a letter to Turner dated 31 August 1806, Acharius commented 'I understand English very well 

but cannot write it with prosection [sic].'


remarks on Lichens, but do not blame me if my opinion on speculative points differs sometimes from 

yours. Neither dare I change names so freely as you have done. I must keep in view those Laws of 

Linnaeus which are sanctioned by experience and founded in justice. If you and I do not follow his 

good principles how can we call others to account? The great Hedwig shall never lead me to use the 

unnecessary word sporangium for capsule. It is easy enough to invent new words. Genius appears 

best in using old ones properly. I dare not change Umbilicaria for Gyrophora though I should have 

preferred the latter at first. I beg to observe that Lichen pustulatus is a true Gryophora. I regret that 

there should be a word in your excellent book that I cannot zealously defend as a friend ought: but I 

know we cannot all think alike in philosophy any more than in religion . . . 

I will propose to the Linnean Society to exchange Their Transactions for something you send. The 

Linnean Society will be very thankful for any manuscript dissertation of yours for their Transactions. 

Thank you for your kind enquiries - my health is now restored I had a long illness.' (Smith, 1804). 

Dawson Turner, more highly enthused by Acharius's new work than Smith, wrote to Swartz: 

'I have just been fortunate enough to procure for myself a copy of Dr Acharius's Methodus, and 

have been arranging the greatest part of my Lichens by it. I agree in great 

measure with his 

distribution of the genera, and his remarks as to many of the species have very much pleased me. He 

is however frequently mistaken about the British Lichens, as I shall be happy to convince him, 

will enter into a correspondence with me. You will probably have the goodness to furnish him with 

my direction, and tell him I shall be much pleased to be favoured with a letter from him, indeed I 

would write myself but in his present domestic affliction I too justly fear it might be deemed an 

intrusion. Pray can the papers he has published in your Nov. Acta be procured? Of these I have the 

15th, 16th and 17th volumes; all the 18th except the Numbers for July, August and September; and 

all the 20th except the last number: could you procure me the rest of Dr Acharius's papers, I would 

repay the expense involved with a great many thanks. I see by his Methodus that I want all your West 

Indian Lichens, but on the other hand I possess a considerable number that he has not included, and 

should I, which I still hope, be fortunate enough to obtain Dickson's collection, I shall be rich indeed 

in new ones. Even if I fail in this expectation, I am sure Sir Jos. Banks will supply me with all that 

may arrive hereafter. I am ignorant how readily English books find their way to Stockholm; but I 

trust if any Botanical publications that would interest you, should appear here, and you be at a loss 

to procure them, you will never hesitate to apply to me, but be assured that the making me useful to 

you is one of the greatest kindnesses you can confer.' (Turner, 1804d). 

Swartz, writing to Turner on the same day as the preceding letter, answered a number of 

Turner's queries: 

'Besides some species of mosses there is also a letter from Prof. Acharius, who salutes you most 

earnestly and wishes your future acquaintance. He certainly can provide you with some that are out 

of my reach. He works constantly on the further accomplishing of his Methodus - that he sometimes 

has been mistaken in regard to English species he knows very well, but this he will acknowledge and 

correct in future. (Swartz, 1804ft). 

That Acharius had a strong advocate for his taxonomic views in Dawson Turner can be seen 

from extracts from the latter 's publications dating from this time, and in the following letter to 

Swartz: 

'I cannot tell you how much pleasure I have received from your letter of the 14th December, [not 

preserved in the Turner correspondence in Trinity College Library, Cambridge] which has just 

reached my hands, and which I hasten immediately to answer, wishing very much that the 

than it has even hitherto been . . 

correspondence between us should grow far more frequent . 

I particularly lament the detention of Dr Acharius' letter, and wish it had been sent by post, for I 

am anxious to have a communication with him: especially as I am about to describe several new 

Lichens for our Linnean Society, and have been particularly attracted to these plants lately. I am 

very much pleased with the outline of his new Genera, but there are parts I wish altered, and also I 

regret his having used so much Greek, for we in England we are not scholars enough to comprehend 

the meaning of his names of them and certainly far from evcpwvoi. At the request of Mr Konig I 

wrote a hasty critique upon his Methodus for the second number of the Annals of Botany.' (Turner, 

1805). 

Although Konig & Sims (1804) presented a synopsis of the Methodus in their literature review, it 

was left to Turner (18046) to publish the first considered examination of the work in an English 

if he


journal, and a most thoughtful and enlightening account it is. While convinced of the necessity of 

employing generic units of a more closely defined character than the old collective genus Lichen, 

Turner was not slow to offer constructive criticism of the taxonomic system devised by Acharius, 

and some of his remarks may be recorded here: 

'In our opinion, which however we give with becoming diffidence, Dr. Acharius has by this new 

distribution done no small service to this department of botany; but whether all the genera he has 

adopted will stand the test of future inquiry, and whether all the species will be allowed to retain the 

places he has assigned to them, we have already expressed our doubts. It is always to be feared that 

the author of any system may adhere to his own principles so closely as to lose sight of nature, and 

thereby cause confusion. 

With regard, however, to the changing of specific names, we cannot consider him altogether 

blameless; and we wish we could bring him and some other eminent botanists to our opinion, that 

nothing tends so much to involve the science in chaos, and nothing is so unworthy of a real 

naturalist. Indeed, it is the common trick of every pretender to science, who has no other means of 

rendering himself conspicuous. We could wish too, that, in forming new names, the author had 

availed himself less of his Greek learning. 

In short, however we may differ in opinion on trifling matters, we here take leave of what we 

consider the most excellent work we ever read upon the Lichens, and earnestly recommend it to 

those among our readers whose attention has been directed to this interesting tribe, wishing Dr. 

Acharius health and leisure, to continue to throw light upon their physiology and history.' 

(Turner, 18046). 

Of Turner's review Swartz wrote two years later: 

'. . . the review of Dr Acharius's Methodus I have communicated to him. He writes to me, that he 

finds several remarks well-founded, and that he has already in many instances adopted the same 

ideas. The number of his species is greatly increased since the publication of his Methodus, from the 

frequent communication of his friends throughout Europe. This will also enable him to render his 

work more complete in future. He has separated from the Opegraphae (in my opinion very 

judiciously) several species, which will form a different genus, called as I believe Arthorica [sic]. The 

genus Baeomyces will also be differently arranged.' (Swartz, 18060). 

The first descriptions of British lichens using Acharius's new taxonomic arrangement were made 

by Dawson Turner and, in an interesting preface to his species novae, he commented upon the 

relevance of Acharius's work to English lichenology in the following manner: 

'. . . Methodus Lichenum, a work which may in my opinion be regarded as tending most essentially 

to facilitate the study of this obscure, yet beautiful and interesting tribe of vegetables, as laying the 

foundation for enabling us to prosecute the investigation of them upon solid principles, and as 

having thrown more light upon their real nature and physiology, than could reasonably be expected 

in the present imperfect state of our acquaintance with the subject. The genera established by this 

able author are already almost universally received among the botanists of neighbouring countries; 

and it is with peculiar satisfaction that, convinced myself by experience of their excellence as well as 

of the necessity of employing them, I avail myself of an opportunity of directing towards them the 

attention of the naturalists of Britain. It is by no means my intention here to enter into an 

enumeration of the various attempts which had previously been made to subdivide the vast tribe of 

Lichens, or even to offer any observations upon the Acharian system, further than may be called 

forth by the particular individuals which I am about to describe. Such enquiries, however interesting 

to myself, would lead me into a field far too wide for my present object; and, as in describing the 

plants themselves I shall have occasion to give the definitions of the genera to which they belong, I 

will merely add, that I trust I shall not be accused of presumption or of an idle itch for innovation, in 

being the first who ventures to use in Britain a new arrangement of these plants. No one is more 

deeply impressed with a sense of the necessity of rigidly abstaining from all useless alteration of 

names, or multiplication of synonymy. Our botanical nomenclature is already so extensive and 

intricate as to be perplexing to all, even to those most conversant with the subject, and to deter many 

from joining us in the prosecution of the science; yet considerations of this nature must not be 

allowed to be carried too far. Every branch of human knowledge requires in proportion to its 

development an extension of its technical terms, without which its progress would effectually be 

checked. Had this been denied, the discoveries of Linnaeus or of Hedwig themselves had been 

nipped in the bud; and I must be allowed to state it as my opinion that many of the alterations


be to us 

proposed by Dr Acharius in the nomenclature of the Lichens, however troublesome it may 

at present to unlearn what we have long since learned, will be found not less important in extending 

the knowledge of these plants than his new system. Upon that propriety, or rather the necessity, of 

sub-dividing the numerous vegetables now arranged under the one vast genus, Lichen, and I believe 

all botanists, who have bestowed upon the subject an attention the most superficial, to be so fully 

agreed, that there is no occasion for a single argument to be employed: were any necessary, the most 

substantial one would be found in the number of British Species, which is already known to amount 

to 350, which is almost daily increasing, and which comprehends various tribes of a nature the most 

dissimilar to each other. It only remains for me, therefore, to express my obligations to my friend Mr 

Borrer, who has furnished me with the materials of the present paper, who has applied himself to the 

study of the indigenous Lichens with a zeal and success which I believe to be altogether unrivalled, 

and whose opinions, I am happy to add, coincide with my own.' (Turner, 1808). 

Acharius's gift of lichens to the Linnean Society of London 1805-1808 

In a postscript dated 25 May 1804, J. E. Smith inquired of Acharius: 

'If you could send the Linnean Society a tolerably complete collection of Lichens, good specimens 

named by yourself and referring to your works, they would be glad to make you any return by 

sending their Transactions of otherwise.' (Smith, 1804). 

This simple suggestion was to have far-reaching consequences and, though it was to take eight 

years for the mutual exchange to be successfully accomplished, guaranteed British lichenology a 

handsome share of original material upon which much succeeding lichen taxonomy would be 

based. Its value has only been widely recognized and appreciated following its purchase by the 

British Museum (Natural History) in 1963. 

To Smith's suggestion Acharius replied with warmth: 

'Reflat sensu Tibi adnunciare, me ferulo elaboratae in paranda collectivae, qualitomum fiori 

potesste longletissima, Lichenum meorum, pro Societate Linneana. Sunt jam hunc in fincos circa 

500 species designatae cum plurimus exorum varietatibus e modificationibus, sollicite papyro e 

nitida afixe atque adornatae, quibus priqutis, non visa mea adsoribenda fuit. Sed cum in dieu ad 

angetur tuo me collectis, etiam Genera quasi Species non raro mutentur e corrigantur, malui diferre 

missionem, quam earn professtinare; tamen decrevi proxima nave incuntis anni omnia ea mittere 

quae tune in parato sunt. Reliquae Species comparandae postea mitti posunt. Latin opeross fuit mea 

cura in haec collections conficienta nam instrumentem ? finimal e fici quousque potuit nitidam 

habere volui. Saepe specissima propria e unica bipartite coactus fui, ne quaedum Species ex illis 

desiderentur quarum exemplar dure potueram.' (Acharius, 1805). 

In reply to this Smith wrote to Acharius: 

'Your letter of October 15, 1805 so full of information and candour should not have remained so 

long unanswered had I not but too good a reason for my silence, as well as for neglecting all business 

that was not absolutely necessary. This was my ill health. Ever since the beginning of November I 

have been more or less indisposed. My complaint was a carbuncle (anthrax) on the leg and for many 

weeks I could hardly sit up to write. It is now quite healed and I am going to London on the 13th for 

about two months as usual . . . The collection of Lichens which you are preparing for the Society will 

be a lasting monument to your fame and highly welcome to us. I hope this spring to forward to you 

all the volumes of our Transactions as a testimony of our gratitude. I shall propose this at the very 

first meeting of the Society at which I am present. As you have already made the collection so 

considerable I hope you will (as you say) send it by the first ship, for the Society has now a spacious 

and handsome house and we wish to increase our museum as much as possible . . . 

You have long been a Foreign Member of the Linnean Society and your name in the printed lists, 

of which I send you one for the year 1803. 1 know not why your diploma has not been sent but will 

enquire about it. The rule of not adding to the number of foreign members till it was reduced by 

death to 50 was dispensed with expressly in your favour, which has not been done for any other 

person 

. . . 

I cannot sufficiently express my admiration of your candour in what you say in answer to my 

remarks on botanical terms. All I am anxious about is to keep the science in as much classical purity 

as possible, and as your example will be of the very first weight (both as a Swede and as being at the 

head of your own department) I am very solicitous that you should co-operate with me in


maintaining all such Linnean laws as experience has proved to be good - 1 will support no others. I 

would therefore be very sparing of new terms - as concise as possible in characters and definitions - 

and very cautious in changing names. There are very few writers at present who make their specific 

characters in the true spirit of our great master. This he justly calls "artis robur" and very few have 

equalled him in it. 

I thank you very much for your remarks on many new species of Lichens in your letter - 1 have not 

yet studied them all, but in most that I have examined I fully agree with you. I must take up the 

subject with attention soon in order to finish the 4th Vol. of Fl. Britca. , which is much wanted. I 

have not been able to procure you specimens of the shields of L. limbatus and fuliginosus , for I was 

prevented going to Wales (where they grow) last summer, nor do I know any method of procuring 

them. I will however, not forget your wishes. I have spent almost a whole day in looking over 

hundreds of specimens before I found any shields.' (Smith, 1806). 

Smith was as good as his word, and in a Council Minute of the Linnean Society of London for 21 

May 1806 it was: 

'Order'd, That a copy of the Transactions of this Society be presented to Dr. Acharius, F.M.L.S., 

upon his sending to the Society a Collection of specimens of lichens describ'd by him.' 

(Howe, 1912: 203). 

Meanwhile Dawson Turner, who was now thinking seriously of writing a general work on 

English lichens, wrote to Swartz: 

'What an age it is since I had the pleasure of writing to, or hearing from you! I had flattered myself 

that, tho' I was silent, you would not have refused occasionally to have favoured me with a letter, 

and I am certain you would not have denied me this pleasure had you known how unfortunately I 

had been circumstanced since the cessation of our correspondence, now more than a year ago. 

Domestic calamities of various natures have kept my mind continually harrassed, and withdrawn my 

thoughts so effectually from Botany, that I I hardly supposed should ever be able to return to it. 

Among these misfortunes the most prominent have been the loss of a parent after a painful and 

distressing illness, and that of my only son torn from us in a moment by a calamity of which the 

remembrance is even now distracting. He was burned to death in his sleep, and that his mother, 

myself, and the rest of our babes did not share his wretched end was owing to a signal interposition 

of Divine Mercy. If from my friends Dr Smith or Professor Mertens, or from our English Papers you 

have heard of these miseries you will not have wondered that I have so long delayed writing to you: 

if you have not heard of them, I fear that both you and Dr Acharius will have thought me shamefully 

negligent, but I am satisfied that what I have written will but too well excuse me. To Dr Acharius I 

shall write by the next post ... I shall on the other side take the liberty of giving you a catalogue of 

my desiderata from the Methodus Lichenum. These plants particularly interest me, as, to divert my 

mind, I applied myself some time ago to the collecting materials for a Lichenographia Britannica, 

chiefly with a view to introducing among my countrymen the knowledge of Acharius' admirable 

dispositio; and, if Mr Borrer, Mr Harriman, and Mr Griffith will but co-operate with me as I wish, I 

shall not despair of producing a work that will be interesting to the students of this branch of 

botany.' (Turner, 1806a). 

In reply, Swartz wrote to Turner: 

'I am charmed to hear that you have a design to elaborate a Lichenographia Britanicanica - it will no 

doubt be very considerable. The value you put upon my friend Acharius's Methodus is very 

flattering. He is now working upon a editio aucta atque emendata - or something of that kind, which 

will probably contain great improvements, as it has been in his power to see and observe an amazing 

deal more of his favourite tribe since the publication, which has indicated to him some - 1 believe 

very reasonable alterations of the arrangement, partly occasioned through observations from his 

friends, and from his own investigations upon the subject.' (Swartz, 18066). 

Later the same month (June) Swartz wrote again to Turner: 

'Acharius may be able to do something and I suppose he intends to do it - during the course of a 

12-month he has been preparing a collection for the Linnean Society's Museum, which will be the 

truest and surest guide to his Methodus. He intends to send off that collection this year. It will be a 

cadeau to the English amateurs of Lichenology.' (Swartz, 1806c). 

Turner, writing to Acharius in October, noted:


'I avail myself most readily of your obliging permission to write to you in my native tongue, for I 

really have so much forgotten Latin from disuse, and compose in it with so greatly difficulty that I 

never have recourse to it without reluctance, and without some apprehension lest I should not 

kind and instructive 

express my thoughts in the manner I intend. I received a few days ago the very 

letter, which you had the goodness to write to me on the 31st August, and I beg you to accept my 

thanks for the variety of information you have afforded me, and to be assured of the high sense I 

entertain of the friendly sentiments you express towards me. Pray believe that I shall always be most 

anxious to cultivate intercourse between us, and to shew myself deserving of the opinion you 

entertain of me; and pray favour me with your letters as frequently as possible. It gives me exceeding 

pleasure to hear that the Manuscript of your Lichenographia Universalis is in such a state of 

forwardness. All the botanical world will expect it anxiously, and be ready to receive from you, their 

"magnus Lichenum Apollo", the laws which you may be ready to lay down. For my own part I am so 

well satisfied with the Genera of your Methodus, and find them so useful that I am half sorry to hear 

of the changes you meditate. I hope you will not be offended at my presuming to beg of you not to 

establish Genera upon minute differences, unfit for common use; and at my begging still more 

strenuously that you would not alter specific names where it can possibly be avoided; even though 

you could substitute others more appropriate than those now in use. The confusion of Synonymy is 

the great hindrance to the present progress of botanical knowledge and it is particularly injurious in 

a tribe so difficult of themselves as the Lichens. 

Some of your new Genera I should wish to see inscribed with the names of those Botanists who 

have made themselves distinguished among these plants: I wish that no tribe has previously been 

dedicated to you, and that what you have called Parmelia might have been called Acharia: for myself 

I hope to have a genus when the Fuci are subdivided as they must be; but I should consider it a 

favour if you would call one of your Genera of Lichens Borrera, in honour of my friend Mr Borrer, 

whom I consider the most able Lichenologist in this Kingdom, and who is now working with me 

upon a Lichenographia Britannica. In this task we proceed very slowly on account of the many 

doubts and perplexities that we find at every step, nor shall we think of publishing anything till your 

Lichenographia Universalis had made its appearance that we may correct our errors by your 

knowledge, and follow your nomenclature. I will now take the liberty of offering a few remarks upon 

the observations you made on the Lichens I sent you, and if I am in error I trust you will correct me 

. . . [then follows a page of comments]. 

'I have found many new things among the Lichens this summer, but have so nearly filled my paper 

that I must reserve all mention of them to my next letter when I will also communicate the characters 

of the new species lately figured in English Botany.' (Turner, 18066). 

In December Turner wrote to Swartz: 

'I have been amusing myself lately with writing a monograph of the genus Opegrapha, and you 

would much oblige me by sending in your next letter morsels, however small, of Persoonii, nimbosa, 

vulvella, betuligna, rubella, prosodea, obscura, conglomerata, siderella, cerasi, scripta and 

dendritica; it appears to me that Dr Acharius has made too many species.' (Turner, 1806c). 

The emendations to the Methodus mentioned by Swartz and which had occupied Acharius for 

three years since the publication of that work were to be the basis of his next, and largest, work, 

the Lichenographia Universalis. In a letter to Smith dated 8 December 1807 (Fig. 10), Acharius 

gave details of its publication in Gottingen (to be supervised by Schrader), as well, as an 

intimation of the despatch of the lichens for the Linnean Society. Further details of the 

Lichenographia universalis are found in letters written in 1808 by Swartz to Smith and to Turner. 

Writing to Smith, Swartz observed: 

'Even Acharius has proved the adversities of the times on account of his work the Lichenographia 

Universalis, which was to be printed at Gottingen, under the inspection of Prof Schrader (because 

the enterprise was too great for any home dealer in typography). The manuscript was, above 2/3 

parts sent in locum last year, and some time after the printing began, we were shut up, that in the 

course of 19 months no account could be had. As for present appearances there are but little or no 

hopes yet to get out of the cage if not quite perished 

before. Dum delorant . . . 

Acharius wrote me some months ago, that he had then received intelligence about the box 

addressed to London for the Linnean Society that it was at last post varios caper arrived to England, 

but that he still wanted confirmation from you. It would be a real loss, if this sending should have 

miscarried, because a more instructive present the Society probably could not receive.' (Swartz, 

18080).


'Umt./H hf^Cm 


In his letter to Turner, Swartz wrote: 

'Acharius has now elaborated his Lichenographia Universalis, which is to be printed at Gottingen 

under inspection of Prof Schrader. About 2/3 parts were sent to Germany before our cursed war, 

and I suppose that they are printed long since. How soon the rest can get out, God in Heaven knows. 

About 20 plates will elucidate this work, a very laborious undertaking, which, I fancy you'll be 

pleased one time to peruse. With the above mentioned copies I'll send you 

a facsimile of the 

catalogue Acharius communicated with me long since upon the species contained and described. 

of the 

Though this list may in some measure have been altered before the completion 

Lichenographia, you'll still have a general view of the whole.' (Swartz, 18086). 

The box of lichens destined for the Linnean Society of London, having been unheard of either in 

London or Sweden for eight months, was eventually discovered in a warehouse at London 

Docks and on 23 November 1808 Thomas Marsham wrote to J. E. Smith: 

'I have at length discovered that your box of dried Plants, Mosses and Lichens from Sweden, have 

lain in the Warehouse at the Custom House since September last, and I have been informed by a 

friend whose name I must not mention, that he thinks if you will write a letter to the Honourable 

Commissioners of the Customs stating that you are President of the Linnean Society and these are 

mere objects of Curiosity, they will order them to be delivered without duty, but if that is refused 

you must fix some value on them that the duty may be ascertained, when that is done if you will give 

me an order to receive them I will finish the business for you.' (Marsham, 1808). 

On receipt of this letter Smith wrote immediately to the Secretary of the Linnean Society: 

'I yesterday received the enclosed from Mr. Marsham. "The box of dried plants etc" is Acharius's 

collection of Lichens for the Linn'n Society of which I sent you long ago the bill of lading, and also 

the catalogue still longer ago. I have no other concern in it than as a member of the Society. 

Marsham seems not to have conferred with you, and thinks the box is mine. I presume you will easily 

get it, but if there be anything I can do pray let me know, and if I am to write to the Commissioners 

how am I to address them, and where? Are they "My Lords and Gentlemen"? Please to let me know 

as soon as you have got the box and I shall write directly to Dr. Acharius, who has long been in 

anxiety about the box, as I have. We ought now by the very first opportunity to send Dr. Acharius 

our Transactions as agreed.' (Smith, 1808). 

Because of the war in Sweden, postal services between Britain and Sweden were irregular or 

non-existent and, by the end of 1808, Acharius had still not learned of the safe arrival of his 

lichens in London. In a letter to Dawson Turner he voiced his worries: 

'Your very obliging letter on the 14th last November transmitted by the English Ambassador Mr 

Merry came safe to my hands yesterday evening. Nobody could with more warmth wish for advice 

from my English friends, amongst which you Sir and Dr Smith occupy the first place, than I, so much 

more as I now a long time since have not heard the least from you. I'm thus very glad to receive your 

assurance that I am remembered, although no letters are from me arrived, and no less so to hear that 

you pursue your litterat [sic] works in these present troublesome times, who, at least here are a great 

hinderance. Believe me Sir, it is not at all my fault that no letters from me are receiv'd during this 

time I past; have twice wrote to Dr Smith and therein sent my compliments to you with some trifling 

notices, but to my sorrow I received no answer. But what seems most extraordinary to me, is that I 

have heard nothing about the Chest of Lichens, which for l l /2 years since I sent as a present to the 

Museum of the Linnean Society at London, containing no less than 1700 specimens of this family 

and directed to Dr Smith. I have however been informed that this chest is happily arriv'd to London 

several months ago. In the same was even inclos'd a great Packet with Lichens etc as well as a letter 

to my worthy friend Dawson Turner. Being in expectation of an answer from Dr Smith, I have since 

in order. I have even 

must be silent. Please to write to Dr Smith about this affair so that it may be put 

sent to Mr Smith the Bill of Lading of the Master of the Ship and direction of the place where this 

Chest was to be found. 

My humble thanks for the Botanical news. The war, in which our country is involved deprives us 

from every communication with other countries; we are however not quite isles. I wish that you Sir! 

and Mr Borrer may not publish your Lichenographia Britannica* before you have seen the 

* This work, published by Turner & Borrer (1839) as 'Specimen of a Lichenographia Britannica; or, attempt at a 

history of the British Lichens', was begun in 1807 but not printed until 1839 (Dawson, 1961; Hawksworth & Seaward, 

1978).


collection I sent to the Linnean Society and that to yourself, as well as that new great new work 

about Lichens which under the care of my friend Schrader has been this year in the press at 

reason of the war have not been able to send the 

Gottingen, but now probably at a stop, since I, by 

continuation of the I manuscript. hope however the first Tome in 4to with its Physiologisk and 

Anatomisk coloured Tables may already be printed. You'll find Sir, that I have therein ventur'd a 

new Method built upon a more sure Botanical Foundation than before, added a greater number of 

new Species (and among these all those you was pleased to send me) - and divided the Lichenes into 

41 good and fixed Genera. I wish and hope that may meet with your approbation. 

I have upon your advice call'd one of these genera Borrera. Please to give my best compliments to 

Mr Borrer and desire him to impart to me if he has any new or dubious. He shall not find me 

ungrateful. If by reason of your intended work you should wish to have my characters, essentials of 

the establish'd Genera, I will communicate them to you through our friend Mr Swartz, and Mr 

Merry with condition that the Publick not gets the least knowledge thereof before my above 

mention'd work about Lichenes is published by the press.' (Acharius, 1808). 

On 7 March 1809 it was noted in the General Minutes of the Linnean Society that: 

'. . . a collection of Lichens from Sweden, describ'd in the Methodus Lichenum were presented from 

Dr Acharius, F.M.L.S.' (Howe, 1912). 

Two months later, Smith wrote to Swartz: 

'I do confess myself to be in act and in deed, but not in heart, a most unworthy correspondent. What 

can I do but throw myself on your mercy? Happy that I can truly say you are often in my thoughts, 

and always in my highest esteem as I profit by your botanical labours and kind presents. In truth my 

health is not very strong, and what time and attention I can give to writing, is occupied by numerous 

works which I always have in hand. I hear of you by my friends and neighbours Turner and Hooker, 

two of the best men and best botanists. I have much wanted to send to you and other Swedish friends 

my Introduction to Botany, of which the 2nd edition is rapidly selling, but my booksellers have not 

yet found a means of forwarding it. Mr. Turner tells me he sent you a parcel last summer, but he 

gave me no notice of it. I hope he will have another opportunity this year. In this book, which is 

intended to render our favourite science easy and popular, I have moreover aimed at preserving the 

purity of Linnaean style and principles, I trust not so as to give offence to those I presume 

occasionally to dissent from. The nomenclature of Botany is becoming an Augean stable, especially 

in England. I am no Hercules, but I have just put in my broom. Dryander professedly disclaims all 

care about the matter, except to adopt the first name however bad it may be ... 

Pray tell the excellent Acharius (with my very kindest respects) that his collection of Lichens lay a 

year in that gulph our Custom-house. It is now safe in the Linnean Society's house. My first business 

when I go to London next week will be to procure him a set of our Transactions as a present from the 

Society - but when the books can be sent God knows! ! . . . 

Salisbury has printed a few copies of an abusive lying pamphlet against me, (after two printers had 

refused it!) in which he accuses me of quarrelling with you\ He means Vahl, but he put Swartz for 

Vahl, because nobody here cares about the latter, and Salisbury knew that it would be disgraceful to 

me to quarrel with you. I answer him not - nor does anybody heed him because of his infamous 

character.' (Smith, 1809). 

On 13 June 1809 the Council of the Linnean Society 'Order'd that a Cabinet be provided to 

contain the Collection of Lichens presented to the Society by Professor Acharius: but that no 

greater expence be incurr'd on this Account than Five Pounds' (Howe, 1912: 203). However, the 

exchange of the Society's Transactions which had been promised by Smith in 1804 and ordered 

by the Council of the Linnean Society lay in abeyance until a Council Minute of 17 November 

1812 'Order'd that a copy of the Society's Transactions be presented to Dr. Acharius' (Howe, 

1912: 203). Smith, embarrassed by the great delay in honouring the conditions of the exchange 

with Acharius, wrote in explanation to Swartz: 

'I am extremely sorry that the Linnean Transactions have not been sent to Dr. Acharius. You know 

that for a long time while it was impossible - but as soon as the difficulties were removed, I requested 

our Secretary to lose no time - but he is a man high in office and has little leisure, though excellently 

disposed. I will finish this letter when I get to London, and will then speak with more precision. In 

the mean while I must beg of you to assure our excellent friend Acharius, that though public and 

private affairs may make me a bad correspondent, and my attention is much taken from the subject


in which he is supreme, I honour and admire him as much as ever. Do present my best regards to him 

and do not let him think I fail in attention or respect.' (Smith, 1813a). 

Nine days later from London, Smith added to his letter to Swartz: 

'I am sorry to find the set of the Linnean Society's Transactions is not yet sent to Dr. Acharius but I 

have given orders for it to be done directly, and will see it is done.' (Smith, 18316). 

In reply, Swartz wrote to Smith: 

'Your compliments to my friend Acharius I dispatched instantly, and have the honour to send you 

his respects in return. He entreats me also to tell you that he has been anxiously expecting the Acta 

Soc. Linn, which have been obligingly promised to him. If this should be fulfilled, he gives the 

assurance to add to the former stock of the collection communicated to the Society, many novitiae or 

new species, spared since the expedition. He would, as he wishes me to say, be highly flattered by 

receiving as a member of the Linnean Society, the diploma and Certificate thereof. And he is 

publishing now a Synopsis Methodica Lichenum, he begs me to inform you about the same, and 

hopes that you will not finish that part of your flora, before you have seen the said work, which he 

thinks to be more compleat than the preceding. In a couple of months I suppose it may be done.' 

(Swartz, 18136). 

Acharius, anxious to tell both Smith and Turner of the impending publication of his Synopsis 

wrote to them both on 26 October 1813. To Smith he observed: 

(Acharius, 1814), 

'I am being informed by Prof Swartz that the chest with Lichenes wich [sic] 

I sent to the Linnean 

Soc., is arrived and I received your compliments by the same friend. But I have not had the 

satisfaction to obtain any special news from yourself, having long awaited on the performance of the 

promise of the Society to accept its published Transactions, as well as the first and second Tome of 

your Flora Britannica. I have charged Prof Swartz to write to you of this as well as some other points, 

particularly that of obtaining the suite of the Transactions of the Society, in lieu of which I will 

its collections with the new discovered Lichenes. 

complete 

In order to make me remembered, I send you some new and very curious species of which a part is 

quite the only I possess, whom I wished that you would retain for yourself, or add to my former 

collection to the Society. I have chosen small species because I dare not send more voluminous 

things with a learned country man Mr Ekenstarm; who will himself give you this wishing that you 

would afford him acquaintance with men who he sekes [sic] to know in regard to his litterary [sic] 

and philological studies. If you will send some what new and rare to me he have promised me to take 

it with himself, for instance the book above mentioned - rare plants of all kinds etc etc ... 

I am glad to hear that you have seen my Lichenographia Universalis [Figs 11, 12, 13]. But I have 

made since, so many corrections, improvements and additions of new things (tarn quoad characteres 

Generum, quam Species e varietates) so that I wished, that you did not imprint the 4th Tome of your 

Flora Brittanica ere You have seen my new work Synopsis Methodica Lichenum, who is going from 

the press this year; (forte intra faciens mensis Novembri) and wich [sic] I bilieve [sic] shall be your 

wellkome [sic]. I shall send it to You, when it is published. 

P. S. Fere puratam habes Monographiam Novarum Generum: Glyphis e Chiodecton cum figuris 

coloratis speciorum detectarum quam ad Societ. Linn. Londiniensis mittere descrisea intentione ut 

in Actis Epidem. Societatis imperatur. Si cura amicie Swartz ad te Manuscriptis e Tabulare 

adscrivint fac ut figurae maxima una casa.' (Acharius, 1813a) (Fig. 14). 

To Turner, Acharius wrote: 

'When I sent, for some years ago, a chest with Lichenes to the Linnean Society in London, it was in 

the same chest a packet to you with Lichenes, Musci and letters. I suppose that you have got it by Dr 

Smith, though I have not had the pleasure of being informed of it by any letter from you. In order to 

make me remembered, I will use this occasion to send you, with a learned countryman, Mr 

Ekenstarm, who is now going to England, some new and very various Lichenes and this letter. If you 

can by this Gentleman to any servise [sic] by the persons, whos [sic] acquaintance he will acquire in 

respect to his litterary and Philological studies, I hope you will do it. He has promised me to 

transport to me, what news you have to send me. I suppose you have seen my work Lichenographia 

Universalis, but is have made, since this work was published many necessary improvements and 

added a considerable multitude of New Species from almost all the end of the world. In my Synopsis 

Methodica Lichenum who is to be published this year and whereof I shall send to you an Exemplar,


LICHENOGRAPHIA 

UNIVEJRSALIS. 

* 

ADIECTIS OBSERVATIONIBUS TFKiURIS HORUM VEGETABIL1UM 

NATURAM ET ORGANORUM CAIU'OMORPHORUM 

STRUCTURAM 1LLUSTRANTIBUS , 

AD 

GENERA, SPECIES, VARIETATES 

DIFFERENTIIS ET OBSERVATIONIBUS SOLLICITE DEFINITAS 

RE DE G IT 

ERIK A C H A R I U S, ^ 

EQCES A I'll. nCC. Oil DIN IS D I! W A S A. 

MEn. DOCT. pnorisson IU:G. nivs. rnovisc. ORTIJOGOTII. AIJ REG. xosoc. 

VADST. NKO. I'KIM. OKI). IU:G. ACAJ). SCIENT. ET COLI.EO. MKD. STOCK II. 

SOCII'.T. IMIYSIOGIt. Ll'SD. PIIYfl. GOTTIVG. LINV. I.USJ). ETC. 

Son.VLIS. SOC. HIST. NAT. WOSfOV. ET rilYTOUR. GOTT. 

Mi:>iun. HONOR. 

CUM TABULI9 AENEII XIV COLORATIJ. 

GOTTINGAE, 

A PUD IUST. FRID. DANCKWERTS. 

i 8 i o. 

Fig. 11 Title page of Lichenographia universalis (Acharius, 1810). Library, British Museum (Natural 

History). 

You may see how much I have been able to contribute to the completion of the Lichenologie. T'is in 

my opinion the most useful and complete of my works in that way.' (Acharius, 1813&). 

With the advice on the publication of the Synopsis (Fig. 15) made known to Smith and Turner, 

the lichenologists in England who would have had most use for it, Acharius ended his 

correspondence with botanists in England although he continued to hear of botanical progress in 

England through his friend Swartz. 

,


Fig. 12 Hand-coloured plate (II) from Lichenographia universalis. Library, British Museum (Natural 

History). 

Swartz meanwhile, had also written to Nathaniel Winch of Newcastle in the same year, 

mentioning the new Synopsis: 

'Mr Acharius's Lichenographia is a work of 4 value. If I can get it, I will contrive to send it, but this 

moment no copy is to be got here. A new Synopsis of Lichens (a compendium of the 

Lichenographia) is just printing and this I shall certainly be able to dispatch 

(Swartz, 1813a). 

another season.' 

Turner, who had espoused Acharius's views most strongly, still received letters from Swartz 

from time to time, and in them lichens were always discussed. Swartz was keenly interested in 

the progress of Turner's Lichenographia. In 1816 Swartz observed to Turner: 

'. . . my friend Dr Acharius has pursued his old task, the Lichenologia, and his last opusculum is the 

Synopsis, which contains indeed multum in parvo. The very great addition he got not only from


' 

1 

A.. 4tV>.'*-*1.4 

f . * ' ~ ' 

'^MBiJiiEg^ 

:*+, 

r^ 

/ 

LECIDEA. 

GENUS VI. 

- ..... - 

j 

LECIDEA. Aca 

i />


isvt** to*,** 

h/***t? -*m


, 

SYNOPSIS METHODICA 

. ACR. RES. OBDIKH OE WAIA, 

MED. DOCT. FUPP. REG, FHVSIC, PROVING. OSTRO 

n REG. NOFOC. VADITEN. Ixn. Rueo. Ac A/I SCIEKT. 

COLLEO. SAKIT. STOCH. SOCIT.TT. SCIINT. UriAt. PHTSIO- 

SHATK. Lusnr.xi. PHYSIC. GOTTIVO. LIXM, LO.VDIN. Pattoon. 

Gout*!!. HIST. NAT, BEROLIN. MXDIC. Src. 

ITC. SoDALli. SoCIETT. HlST. KAT. MoiCOT. 

WETTKHW. ET PBTTOCB. GOTTIKO. 

MEMBR. HONOR. 

* 

XT StMTJUt'S SVAMBOIlG IT So. 

Fig. 15 Title page of Synopsis methodica lichenum (Acharius, 1814). J. E. Smith's copy. Library, Linnean 

Society of London. 

informed that you have been or still elaborating on a Lichenologia Britannica I suppose the annexed 

may deserve your attention, and their perusal explain some points of the intricate tribe in question.' 

(Swartz, 1818). 

1844* 

One month before his death in September 1818, Swartz wrote to W. J. Hooker: 

'How goes it with the Lichenographia of Messrs Turner and Borrer, (quoted frequently in Engl. Bot. 

as in manuscript?) I suppose nothing is published yet, as I have not seen it announced anywhere. 

The tracts of M. Acharius which I send you upon the Calicioidea* may perhaps be of some service 

for extricating doubtful points on this tribe of the Lichen family.' (Hooker, 1840). 

Although the Linnean Society later published Acharius's account of the new lichen genera 

Glyphis and Chiodecton (Acharius, 1818), it was in his earlier works and in his encouragement 

and example to Smith and Turner where his impact on lichen taxonomy was most strongly felt. 

This influence later affected the rising generation of English lichenologists (Hooker, 1821, 1833; 

Gray, 1821; Greville, 1824, 1826; Taylor, 1836; Leighton, 1851, 1854, 1856; Lindsay, 1856; 

Mudd, 1861). Through the fine collection now in the herbarium of the British Museum (Natural 

studies in 

History) the concepts of Acharius still have considerable relevance to contemporary 

lichen taxonomy (e.g. Tibell, 1978, 1987). 

* Acharius (1815, 1816, 1817); see also Tibell (1987).


The Acharius lichens in the British Museum (Natural History) (BM-ACH) 

The collection of lichens sent to London by Acharius as a gift to the Linnean Society of London 

was neglected for many years, the specimens attached to their cards being kept loose in drawers 

in a cabinet. In April 1961 the collection was removed to the herbarium of the British Museum 

(Natural History) by Mr P. W. James, Mr J. R. Laundon (BM), and Dr R. Santesson 

(University of Uppsala). In 1962-63 Mr J. R. Laundon curated the collection into its present 

state, a painstaking task of which he later noted 'the specimens were on their present cards, 

which were kept loose in drawers and which were so black with dirt that one had great difficulty 

in reading the names on many of the specimens. It took me several months work just to remove 

this dirt from the labels and material . . .' (J. R. Laundon, pers. comm.) The Acharius lichens 

were purchased from the Linnean Society of London by the British Museum (Natural History) 

.. 

tt#. 

.;k-^...L?' 

'' 

-71L '',;... i'^'T?"-^23 

Fig. 16 Title page of Acharius's handwritten catalogue of lichens, now in the Herbarium, Lichen Section, 

British Museum (Natural History).


T&/'. *++*+ */: 

Fig. 17 Borrera trulla [= Everniopsis trulla (Ach.) Nyl.] and Nephroma polaris [= Nephroma arctica (L.) 

Torss.] in the Acharius collection, British Museum (Natural History), showing names used by Acharius 

in Lichenographia universalis, and in Methodus.


in January 1963 (with a collection of cryptogamic books and specimens), for a sum of 250.00, 

and have now a permanent place in the cryptogamic herbarium. 

The lichen collection in BM-ACH illustrates Acharius's taxonomic arrangement used in the 

Lichenographia Universalis, with names from the earlier Methodus in parenthesis or scored out 

(Hawskworth, 1977: Fig. 3). Acharius's catalogue (Fig. 16) of the collection entitled 'Lichenes: 

ad Angliam pro Museo Societatis Linnaeanae Londinensis A 1807 ab E. Achario missi' 

comprises 894 specimens in 41 genera arranged as follows: Spiloma 1-12; Arthonia 13-27; 

Solorina 28-29; Gyalecta 30-33; Lecidea 34-177; Gyrophora 178-194; Calicium 195-220; 

Opegrapha 221-261; Graphis 262-275; Biatora 276; Verrucaria 277-322; Endocarpon 323-335; 

Trypethelium 336; Porina 337-340; Thelotrema 341-343; Pyrenula 344-347; Variolaria 348 

-359; Sagedia 360-363; Urceolaria 364-384; Lecanora 385-551; Roccella 552-553; Evernia 

Fig. 18 Specimen of William Borrer's observations on the Acharius lichens. Herbarium, Lichen Section, 

British Museum (Natural History).


554-560; Sticta 561-567; Parmelia 568-624; Borrera 625-641; Cetraria 642-651; Peltidea 

652-665; Nephroma 666-669; Dufourea 670-672; Cenomyce 673-756; Baeomyces 757-760; 

Isidium 761-767; Stereocaulon 768-773; Sphaerophoron 774-775; Rhizomorpha 776-777; 

Alectoria 778-788; Ramalina 789-811; Cornicularia 812-825; Usnea 826-839; Collema 840 

-883 \Lepraria 884-894. 

The lichens are attached to water-marked paper glued on to card, 11-12 x 7-8 cm and are 

named in ink by Acharius (Fig. 17). They are housed in packets mounted on herbarium sheets 

and enclosed in folders in the order stated in Acharius's catalogue. Tibell (1987: 258) has 

recently commented on the BM-ACH collection as follows '. . . specimens seem first to have 

been annotated according to Methodus Lichenum, and when the annotations were revised 

"mscr." (manuscript) and "Lichenogr. universal." were added. The "mscr." has been crossed 

out, possibly by Acharius himself after finishing the Methodus and Lichenographia universalis 

manuscripts. The drawback of the BM-ACH material is that no information on collectors or 

localities is supplied with the specimens. Its importance arises from the fact that this was 

probably part of the material Acharius was working with when he wrote the "Methodus" and 

"Lichenographia".' This view was stated by Swartz in letters to Turner (see p. 168 above) when 

he wrote that Acharius had spent a year preparing a named set of lichens '. . . which will be the 

truest and surest guide to his Methodus' (Swartz, 1806c). 

William Borrer (1781-1862) saw the Acharius lichens snortly after their arrival at the Linnean 

Society, examined them carefully and prepared manuscript comments on them dated 25 May 

1809 and 22 November 1811 (Fig. 18). These comments are maintained with the Acharius 

catalogue in BM-ACH. 

J. R. Laundon (BM) has prepared a detailed list of the BM-ACH collection including several 

additional taxa not included in the Acharius holograph catalogue. The full BM-ACH holding is 

shown in Table 1 . 

Table 1 Arrangement of lichens in BM-ACH. 

Spiloma 

1. tumidulum 

2. v. rubrum 

3. melaleucum 

4. v. leucopellaeum 

5. mlcroclonum 

6. leucostigma 

7. paradoxum 

8. xanthostigma 

9. humosum 

10. Verrucaria 

11. maculans var. substellatum 

12. vitiligo 

- versicolorvar. variolosum 

Arthonia 

12a. punctiformis 

13. v. olivacea 

14. pruinosa 

15 . gibberulosa 

16. Swartziana 

17. v. cinerascens 

18. lurida 

19. gyrosa 

20. radiata 

21. v. astroidea 

22. v. tynnocarpa 

23. v. stellulatus 

24. v. hyparcha 

25. v. anastomosans 

26. melantera 

27. lyncea 

Solorina 

28. crocea 

29. saccata 

Gyalecta 

30. epulotica 

31. geoica 

31a. Wahlenbergiana 

32. v. truncigena 

33. atrata 

Lecidea 

34. immersa 

35 . pantosticta 

36. v. polyblasta 

37. v. spilota 

38. v. viridana 

39. antillarum 

40. petraea 

41. \.excentrica 

42. v. callistea 

43. v. obscurata 

44. v. globulata

Table 1 - cont . 

45.fumosa 

46. cechumena 

47. v. athroocarpa 

48. v. testudinea 

49. pelidna 

50. carphina 

51. lapicida 

52. v. cicatricosa 

53. 

54. 

55. 

56. 

57. 

58. 

v. radians 

v. latypea 

v. pantherina 

v. monticola 

v. cyanea 

v. illuta 

59. v. lithophila 

60. conglomerata 

61. coracina 

62. enteroleuca 

62a. v. grandinosa 

63. artyta 

64. glebosa 

65. limosa 

66. squalida 

67. aromatica 

68. papillosa 

69. ambigua 

70. terrigena 

71. atroalba 

72. v.fimbriata 

73. v. concreta 

74. talcophila 

75.flavicunda 

76. tigillaris 

77. atrovirens 

78 . v . geograph 

ica 

79. v. gerontica 

80. asserculorum 

81. silacea 

82. Dicksonii 

83. v. oederi 

84. viridiatra 

85. escharoidea 

86. sanguinaria 

87. coniops [&v. aequata] 

88. cinereoatra 

89. helicopis 

90. murina 

91. stigmatea 

92. amylacea 

93. platycarpa 

94. confluens 

95. v. ochromela 

96. v. steriza 

97. hypnophila 

98. parasema 

99. v. limitata 

100. v. elaeochroma 

101. \.microcarpa 


102. 

103. 

104. 

105. 

106. 

107. 

108. 

109. 

110. 

111. 

112. 

113. 

114. 

115. 

116. synothea 

\ll. pezizoidea 

118. 

119. albocaerulescens 

120. abietina 

121. epipolia 

122. speirea 

123. v. cretacea 

124. 

125. corticola 

126. 

127. 

128. 

129. Dilleniana 

130. alabastrina 

131. 

132. 

133. 

134. 

135. 

136. pineti 

137. 

138. 

139. 

140. 

141. 

142. 

143. 

144. 

145. 

146. atrorufa 

147. panaeola 

148. cinereofusca 

149. \.jungermanniae 

150. caesiorufa 

151. aurantiaca 

152. 

153. 

154. luteoalba 

155. 

156. 

157. 

v. myriocarpa (incl. L. pinicola) 

v. athroa 

v. rugulosa 

\.punctata 

v. saprophila 

dryina 

v. Hlacina 

arthonloides 

muscorum 

\.geochroa 

citrine Ila 

uliginosa 

v.humosa 

dolosa 

v. roburnea 

v. calcaria 

v. leucocelis 

\.farinosa 

umbrina 

v. anceps 

v. rosella 

icmadophila 

v. aemginosa 

v. elveloides 

carneola v. cornea 

v. chlorotica 

v. acerina 

v. arceutina 

v. hypopta 

v. erysibe 

vernalis 

v. sphaeroides 

anthracina 

callosyne 

saxetana 

v. holocarpa 

v. pyracea 

v. oligotera

184 

Table 1 - cont. 

158. Ehrhartiana 

159. v. polytropa 

m.lucida 

161. epixantha v. lutea 

162. rupestris 

163. v. irrubata 

1 64 . v 

. pyrithroma 

\65.fuscolutea 

166. v. leucoraea 

167. icmalea 

168. /Mridfl 

169. scalaris 

170. v. myrmecina 

171. vesicularis 

172. Candida 

173. thriptophylla 

174. v. corallinoides 

175. globifera 

176. paradoxa 

111. canescens 

daphoena 

Ilia, heteroidea 

178. v. glabra 

179. v. polyphylla 

180. v. anthracina 

181. v.corrugata 

182. v. cinerascens 

183. v. variegata 

I84.pellita 

185. v. luxurians 

186. hirsuta 

187. dewsta 

188. erosa 

v. brotera & v. flocculosa 

189. hyperborea 

190. proboscidea 

191. v. exasperata 

192. spadochroa 

193. murina 

194. pustulata 

Calicium 

195. strigonellum 

196. cembrinum 

197. tympanellum 

198. corynellum 

199. v. paroicum 

200. turbinatum 

2Ql.saepiculare 

202. claviculare 

203. v. sphaerocephalum 

204. v.pusillum 

205. trachelinum 

206. hyperellum 

207. v. lygodes 

208. v. roscidum 

209. chrysocephalum 

210. v. chlorellum 

DAVID J. GALLOWAY 

211. v. /i/are 

212. cantherellum 

213. \.peronellum 

214. ventricosum 

215. capitellatum 

216. aciculare 

217. gracilentum 

218. trichiale 

219. v. epidryon 

220. v. stemoneum 

Opegrapha 

220a. verrnearioides 

221. v. hypolepta 

222. v. marmorata 

223. nimbosa 

224. v. subobliterata 

225. Persoonii 

226. v. aporea 

221 . lithyrga 

228. v. confluens 

229. macularis 

230. \.faginea 

231. v. conglomerata 

232. herpetica 

233. rubella v. aenea 

234. v. viridis 

235. rubella v. decolorata 

236.fuliginosa 

237. vulgata 

238. siderella 

239. v. rufescens 

240. denigrata 

241. v. meliana 

242. v. flfra 

243. stenocarpa 

244. v. hapalea 

245. vulvella 

246. v. anachaena 

247. nctf/za 

248. caesia 

249. v. amylacea 

250. diaphora 

251. v.spurcata 

252. v. spaniota 

253. parallela 

254. signata 

255. pedonta 

256. v. sychnotea 

251. rimalis 

258. v.fuscata 

259. epipasta 

260. abnormis v. var/a 

261. phaea v. brunna 

Graphis 

262. lineola 

263. caribaea


264. dendritica 

265. cerasi 

265a. pulverulenta 

266. v.fraxinea 

267. v. grammica 

268. v. microcarpa 

269. \.flexuosa 

269a. scrip ta 

270. v. var/a 

271. v. hebraica 

212. serpentina 

273. v. acerina 

274. v. spathea 

275. v. eutypa 

Biatora 

276. turgida 

Verrucaria 

277. 

278. punctiformis 

279. v. ptelaeodes 

280. cerasj 

281. epidermidis 

282. v. albissima 

283. gemmata 

284. stigmatella 

285. v. micans 

286. v. tremulae 

287. v. lactea 

288. carpinea 

289. rhyponta 

290. mucosa 

291. chlorotica 

292. aractina 

293. aethiobola 

294. umbrina 

295. v. nigrescens 

296. maura 

297. clopima 

298. pyrenophora 

299. Schraderi 

300. muralis 

301. ceuthocarpa 

302. striatula 

303. v. acrotella 

304. lignyota 

305. trachona 

306. epipolaea 

307. leucocephala 

308. v. amphibola 

309.farrea 

310. byssacea 

311. \.stictica 

312. v. minutissima 

313. epigea 

lU.pulla 

315. polythecia 


316. papillosa 

317. pusilla 

318. gelatinosa 

319. rubens 

320. laevata 

320a. fuscella 

321. v. viridula 

322. v. obscura 

- hymnothora 

- tropica 

Endocarpon 

323. sinopicum 

324. tephroldes 

325. squamulosum 

326. lachneum 

327. hepaticum 

328. v. lacinulatum 

329. euplocum 

330. leptophyllum 

331. miniatum 

332. complicatum 

333. turgidum 

334. pallidum 

335. 

Trypethelium 

336. Sprengelii 

Porina 

337. lejoplaca 

338. v. hymenea 

339. pertusa 

340. chionea 

Thelotrema 

341 . lepadinum 

342. v. scutelliforme 

343. exanthematicum 

Pyrenula 

344. verrucosa 

345. hiascens 

346. microciba 

347. gibbosa 

Variolaria 

348. 

348a. communis 

349. v.faginea 

350. v. a/nea 

351. v.pinea 

352. v. leucaspis 

353. v. orbiculata 

353a. amara 

354. v. discoidea 

355. v.fraxinea 

356. aspergilla



357. v. coniza 

358. tenella 

359. coralllna & v. oreina 

Sagedia 

360. laevata 

361. protuberans 

362. rufescens 

363. verrucarioides 

Urceolaria 

364. Acharii 

364a. ocellata 

365. v. ocellulata 

366. diamarta 

367. Hoffmanni 

368. v. contorta 

369. gibbosa 

370. \.fimbriata 

371. v. amphibola 

372. panyrga 

373. mutabilis 

374. cinerea 

375. v. tigrina 

376. v. polygonia 

377. v. tessulata 

378. v. notata 

379. scruposa 

380. bryophila 

381. diacapsis 

382. calcaria 

383. hypoleuca 

384. Schleicheri 

Lecanora 

385. 

386. v. expansa 

387. v. confragosa 

388. v. accumulate! 

389. v. calliginosa 

390. v. grumosa 

391. argopholis 

392. lainea 

393. ostracoderma 

393a. multipuncta 

394. v. rimulosa 

395. v. cinerosa 

396. coarctata 

397. v. fofrota 

398. v. cotaria 

399. v. inquinata 

400. leucopis 

401. verrucosa 

402. v. agelaea 

403. v. argena 

4Q4.fuscoatra 

405. peridea 

406. v.pinicola 

407. v. exigua 

408. sophodes 

409. v. archaea 

410. v. pyrina 

410a. glaucoma 

411. v. contaminata 

412. v. eiphorea 

413. v. leptoploea 

414. v. varians 

415. Ceratoniae 

416. Swartzii 

417. angulosa v. leptyrea 

418. v. indurata 

419. chondrotypa 

420. Hageni 

421. \.syringea 

432. v. umbrina 

423. epibryon v. pachnea 

424. subcarnea 

v. ochroidea 

425. milvina 

426. v. privigna 

427. flw?//a 

428. v. sordidescens 

429. //Vida 

430. parella 

431. v.pallescens 

432. v. upsaliensis 

433. v. tumidula 

434. tartarea 

435. v.frigida 

436. elatina 

437. haematomma 

438. v. coccinea 

439. v.porphyria 

440. rwbra 

441 . cinnabarina 

441 a. subfusca 

442. v. argentata 

443. v. coilocarpa 

444. v. horiza 

445. v. allophana 

446. v. rw/fl 

447. v. atrynea 

448. v. glabrata 

449. aipospila 

450. venosa v. cruenta 

45 1 . v . lepadolemma 

452. sulphurea 

453. v. leucogaea 

454. distans 

455. spodophaea 

456. scrupulosa v. melioica 

457. poliophaea 

458. granulosa 

459. v. aporetica 

460. griseoatra 

461. coenosa


462. commutata 

463. rubricosa 

464. prosecha 

465. graphica 

466. anomala 

467. v. cooperta 

468. v. tenebricosa 

469. v. cyrtella 

470. v. ochrostoma 

471. v. hostelea 

472. \.ferruginosa 

473. varw 

474. v. pleorytis 

475. v. ravida 

476. v. symmicta 

477. v.pinara 

478. v. apochroea 

479. v. illusoria 

480. intricata 

481. v. erythrella 

482. a'/rma 

483. \.xanthostigma 

484. salicina 

485. v. microthelia 

486. cerina 

487. v. chrysaspis 

488. v. g//va 

489. vitellina 

490. v. aurella 

491. v. coruscans 

492. v. steropea 

493. craspedia 

494. inalpina 

495. epanora 

496. e/jfwsa 

497. expallens 

498. orosthea 

499. psoralis 

500. carneolutea 

501. rubelliana 

502. minutula 

5Q3.falsaria 

504. v. decussata 

505. v. rivulosa 

506. v. cyathoides 

507. fcadw 

508. v.fuscata 

509. halophaea 

510. v. aphoriza 

511. decipiens 

512. glaucocarpa 

513. crassa 

514. v. melaloma 

514a. rubina 

515. v. liparia 

516. cartilaginea 

517. candelaria 

518. v. polycarpa 


519. v. lychnea 

520. hypnorum 

521. lepidora 

522. brunnea 

523. v. nebulosa 

523a. chrysoleuca 

524. v. opacfl 

525. rutilans 

526. epigea 

527. galactina 

528. v. dispersa 

529. circinata 

530. myrrhina 

531. \.pinacion 

532. alphoplaca 

533. v. inflata 

534. molybdina 

525. v. microcyclos 

536. saxicola 

537. dlffracta 

538. straminea 

539. v. oreina 

540. elegans 

541. v. tegularis 

542. minlata 

543. v. obliterata 

544. murorum 

545. callopisma 

546. chlorophana 

541.fulgens 

548. v. bracteata 

549. microphylla 

550. melanaspis 

551. elaeina 

Roccella 

552. tinctoria 

553. v. hypomeca 

Evernia 

554. divaricata 

555. vulpina 

556. prunastri 

557. v. stictocera 

558. v. phellina 

559. v. retusa 

560. v. soredifera 

Sticta 

561. damaecornis 

562. tomentosa 

563. dissecta 

564. sylvatica 

565. pulmonaria 

566. v. pleurocarpa 

567. scrobiculata

188 

Table 1 - cont . 

Parmelia 

568. caesia 

569. v. dubia 

570. recurva 

571. virella 

572. encausta 

573. v. tex tills 

574. v. candefacta 

575. aquila 

576. v. stippaea 

577. sfyg/fl 

518.fahlunensis 

579. sdastra 

580. omphalodes 

581 . v. panniformis 

582. saxatilis 

583. v. rosaeformis 

584. centrifuga 

585. ambigua 

586. aureola 

587. cycloselis 

588. v. lithotea 

589. H/otfira: 

590. stellaris 

591. aipolia 

592. v. anthelina 

593. v. flcr/ta 

594. v. cercidia 

595. pulverulenta 

596. v. angustata 

597. venusta v. hybrida 

598. aleurites 

599. v. di#Mi 

600. muscigena 

601. v. /enta 

602. rubiginosa 

603. lanuginosa 

604. apartea 

605. conoplea 

606. conspersa 

607. v. stenophylla 

608. speciosa 

6Q9.farrea v. alphiphora 

610. parietina 

611. olivacea 

612. v.prolixa 

613. corrugata 

614. tiliacea 

615.scortea 

616. caperata 

617. v. ulophylla 

618. perlata 

619. glomulifera 

620. physodes 

621. v. vittata 

622. \.platyphylla 

623. v. labrosa 

DAVID J. GALLOWAY 

624. diatrypa 

Borrera 

625. 

626. v. exemta 

627. v. leptalea 

628. capensis 

629. ephebea 

630. ciliaris 

631. v. melanosticta 

632. v. verrucosa 

633. v. actinota 

634.furfuracea 

635. v. nwdfl 

636. v. ceratea 

637. v. scobicina 

638. vlllosa 

639. 7>M//fl 

640. leucomela 

64l.flavicans 

Cetraria 

642. islandica 

v. thyreophora 

643. cucullata 

644. v. nipharga 

645. v. tapeina 

646. nivalis 

647. glauca 

648. saepincola 

649. v. ulophylla 

650. juniperina 

651. v.pinastri 

Peltidea 

652. venosa 

653. horizontalis 

654. v. hymenina 

655. v. lophyra 

656. canina 

657. v. spuria 

658. v. membranacea 

659. v. ladnulata 

660. polydactyla 

661. v. microcarpa 

662. aphthosa 

663. v. verrucosa 

664. scutata 

665. v. collina 

Nephroma 

666. polaris 

661. resupinata 

668. v.papyracea 

669. parilis 

Dufourea 

61Q.flammea


671. mollusca 

672. madreporiformis 

Cenomyce 

673. papillaria 

674. epiphylla 

675. v. caespiticia 

676. strepsilis 

677. \.plumosa 

679. cariosa 

681. botrytes 

682. delicata 

682a. bacillaris 

683. v. macilenta 

684. v. apolepta 

685. v. brachytes 

686. v. styracella 

687. v. scolecina 

687a. cornuta 

688. v. chordalis 

689. v. lumbricalis 

690. v. proboscidalis 

691. v. merista 

692. v. exoncera 

693. v. cercophora 

693 a. radiata 

694. v. holoschista 

695. v. nemoxyna 

696. v. contortuplicata 

697. v. actinota 

697a. ecmocyna 

698. v. elongata 

699. \.rostrata 

700. v. gracilis 

701. \.subulata 

701a. allotropa 

702. v. turbinata 

703. v. verticillata 

704. v. lomagona 

705. v. crispata 

706. v. corymbosa 

707. v. sparassa 

707a. gonorega 

708. v. cenotea 

709. v. trachyna 

710. v. pleolepis 

711. v. virgata 

712. v. blastica 

713. v. anomoea 

713a. coccifera 

714. v. stemmatina 

715. v. asotea 

715a. deformis 

716. v. digitata 

717. v. gonecha 

718. v. crenulata 

719. damaecornis 

720. v. gentilis 


721. alcicornis 

722. cervicornis 

723. parecha 

724. v. cetrarioides 

724a. coccocephala 

725. v. vesrite 

726. v. bellidiflora 

121 . v. ampullifera 

728. v. gradlienta 

729. uncialis 

730. v. obtusata 

731. v. dicraea 

732. v. bolacina 

733. adunca & v. grypeus 

734. pyxidata 

734a. v. simplex 

735. \.pocillum 

736. \.fimbriata 

737. v. syntheta 

738. v. tuberculosa 

138a.furcata 

739. v. spadicea 

740. v. lepidota 

741. v. epermena 

742. v. recurva 

743. v. incrassata 

744. v. palamea 

745. \.pungens 

746. v. m'vea 

747. v. spinosa 

748. aggregata 

749. rangiferina 

750. v. alpestris 

751. v.sylvatica 

752. v. racemosa 

753. v. a/rta 

754. oxycera 

755. vermicularis 

756. v. taurica 

Baeomyces 

151 . roseus 

758. rupestris 

759. v. lignorum 

760. v. rw/us 

Isidium 

v. byssoides 

761. laevigatum 

762. westringii 

763. coccodes 

764. v. leucoteum 

765. phymatodes 

766. v. phragmeum 

767. corallinum 

Stereocaulon 

168.paschale



769. cereolus 

770. condyloideum 

111. nanum 

112.pileatum 

773. botryosum 

Sphaerophoron 

774. coralloides 

11 5. fragile 

Rhizomorpha 

776. subcorticalis 

111. setiformis 

Alectoria 

777a. jubata 

778. v.prolixa 

779. v. stricta 

780. v. implexa 

781 . v . chalybeiformis 

782. 

783. 

v. capillaris 

v. cana 

784. v. setacea 

785. usneoides 

786. sarmentosa 

787. thrausta 

788. crinalis 

Ramalina 

789. complanata 

19Q.fraxinea 

791. v. taenlata 

792. v. ampliata 

793. v. tuberculata 

794. fastigiata 

795. v. calicaris 

796. scopulorum 

797 . v. cornuata 

798. v. cuspidata 

799 . farinacea 

799a. v. gracilenta 

800. v. multifida 

801. v. leucorsa 

802. v.pendulina 

803. \.phalerata 

v. minutula 

804. pollinaria 

804a. v. elatior 

804b. v. humilis 

805 . polymorpha 

806. 

v. ligulata 

807. 

v. tinctoria 

808. v. emplecta 

809. Cerathis 

810. calamistrata 

811. peruviana 

Cornicularia 

812. 

v.fucina 

813. spadicea 

814. v. odontella 

815. aculeata 

816. 

817. crocea 

v. muricata 

818. divergens 

819. b/co/or 

820. 

821. /arcata 

v. melaneira 

v. nitida 

822. pubescens 

823. hispidula 

824. ochroleuca 

825. 

Usnea 

v. nigrescens 

826. melaxantha 

Sll.florida 

828. v. strigosa 

829. v. v///0sa 

830. 

832. 

833. 

v. 

v. comosa 

v. /wrte 

834. v. glabrata 

835. barbata 

836. 

837. 

838. 

v. implexa 

v. articulata 

v. dasopoga 

839. longissima 

Collema 

840. nigrum 

841 . limosum 

842. cheileum 

842a. v. granlforme 

843. v. byssaceum 

844. pulposum 

845. v. crispum 

846. v. cristatum 

847. elveloideum 

848. chalazanum 

849.plicatile 

850. melaenum 

851. \.gyrosum 

852. v. marginale 

853 . v . jacobaeaefolium 

854. 

v. erosum 

855 . fasciculare 

856. v. aggregation 

857. v. conglomeratum 

858. thysaneum 

859. scotinum 

860. v. sinuatum



861. \.lophaeum 880. subtile 

862. microphyllum 

881. tenuissimum 

863. myriococcum 

882. muscicola 

864. synalissum 

883. pannosum 

865. glomerulosum 

c 

. 

oe-s 

866. saturnmum 

Leprana 

868. tremelloides 884. chlorina 

869. lacerum 885. incana 

870. v. ateleum 886. v. latebrarum 

871. v.fimbriatum 881.farinosa 

872. v. pulvinatum 888. leiphaema 

873. exasperatum 889. v. virescens 

874. tunaeforme 

890. olivacea 

875. nigrescens 891. v.graminea 

876.flaccidum 

811.furvum 

892.fuliginosa 

- 

flava 

878. v. verruciforme 

879. palmatum 

893. Parmelia velutina 

Acknowledgements 

I would like to thank the following for help received during the preparation of this account: Mr G. D. R. 

Bridson, former Librarian, and Ms Gina Douglas, Librarian and Archivist, Linnean Society of London; 

The Master and Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge for permission to publish letters from the Dawson 

Turner Collection in the College Library; Dr J. P. W. Gaskell, Librarian, Mr T. Kaye, Sub Librarian and 

Miss R. Graham, Manuscript Cataloguer, Trinity College Library, Cambridge; Dr Ake Davidsson, 

formerly Keeper of the Manuscript Department, University Library, Uppsala, Sweden; Dr Wilhelm 

Odelberg, Head Librarian, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden; Mr P. W. James 

and Mr J. R. Laundon (BM), and Prof. T. Ahti (Helsinki) for their critical comments on the manuscript; 

Mr D. B. Adams, Mr P. Green, Mr J. N. Downs, and Mr A. D. Gowing (BM) for expert photographic 

assistance, and Miss S. J. Davie (BM) for assistance with typing. 

Unpublished correspondence 

Acharius, E. 1801. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 1: 17. 6 October 1801. 

1803ft. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 1: 21. 28 April 1803. 

- 1805. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 1: 24. 15 October 1805. 

1808. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 24 December 1808. 

1813a. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 1: 27. 26 October 1813. 

1813ft. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 26 October 1813. 

Marsham, T. 1808. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 23 November 1808. 

Smith, J. E. 1791ft. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 16 August 

1791. 

1792. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 21 May 1792. 

1796a. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 17 April 1796. 

1796ft. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 13 October 1796. 

ISOOa. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 10 February 1800. 

- 1800ft. Swartz Correspondence: Carl Gustaf von Brinkmann Collection, Trolle Ljungby Castle, 

Backaskog, Sweden. 16 November 1800. 

- 1801. Acharius Correspondence: University Library, Uppsala. G 5a-77. 28 December 1801. 

- 1802. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 19 February 1802. 

- 1804. Acharius Correspondence: University Library, Uppsala. G 5a-78. 24 April 1804. 

1806. Acharius Correspondence: University Library, Uppsala. G 5a-79. 9 April 1806. 

1808. Archives Linnean Society of London. 25 November 1808. 

- 1809. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 2 May 1809. 

- 1813a. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 17 April 1813. 

1813ft. Addition to previous letter. 26 April 1813.


Swartz, O. P. ISOla. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 9: 174. 2 February 1801. 

18016. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 9: 176. 4 November 1801. 

18020. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 13 April 1802. 

18026. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 9: 178. 16 April 1802. 

1802c. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 9: 180. 10 September 1802. 

- I802d. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 10 September 1802. 

- 1802e. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 9: 182. 10 October 1802. 

1803a. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 9: 184. 16 June 1803. 

18036. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 30 August 1803. 

1804a. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 27 May 1804. 

18046. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library Cambridge. 6 November 1804. 

18066. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 6 June 1806. 

1806c. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 23 June 1806. 

1808a. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 9: 188. 16 October 1808. 

18086. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 10 December 1808. 

1813a. Winch Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 3: 47. 16 January 1813. 

18136. Smith Correspondence: Linnean Society of London. 9: 192. 30 June 1813. 

1816. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 25 September 1816. 

1818. Dawson Turner Correspondence: Trinity College Library, Cambridge. 15 March 1818. 

Turner, D. 1801. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, 31 August 

1801. 

1802a. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 15 March 1802. 

18026. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 12 April 1802. 

1802c. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 1 August 1802. 

I802d. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 18 October 1802. 

1803a. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 21 February 1803. 

- 18036. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 18 August 1803. 

1804c. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 2 February 1804. 

1804d. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. ? 1 May 1804. 

18Q4e. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 6 November 1804. 

1805. Swartz Correspondence. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 18 February 1805. 

1806a. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 5 May 1806. 

18066. Acharius Correspondence: University Library, Uppsala. G 5a-86. 13 October 1806. 

1806c. Swartz Correspondence: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 1 December 1806. 

References 

Acharius, E. 1798. Lichenographiae suecicae . prodromus Linkoping. 

1803a. Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenes . . . Stockholm. . . . Supplementum Liepzig. 

1810. Lichenographia universalis. In qua lichenes omnes detectos . . . Gottingen. 

1812. Monographic der Lichen-Gattung Pyrenula. Magazin Ges. naturf. Fr. Berl. 6: 1-25. [MS copy 

in Acharius's autograph in Opusc. 67 (la) in Botany Library, British Museum (Natural History).] 

1814. Synopsis methodica lichenum . . . Lund. 

- 1815. Afhandlung om de cryptogamiske vexter, som komma under namn af Calicioidea. Forsta 

stycket. Beskrifning pa tvenne nya slagten: Limboria och Cyphelium. K. svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl. 

1815: 246-271. 

1816. Afhandlung om de cryptogamiske vexter, som komma under namn af Calicioidea. Andra 

stycket. Beskrifning pa tvenne slagten: Calicium och Coniocybe. K. svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl. 

1816: 106- 125; 260-291. 

1817. Afhandlung om de cryptogamiske vexter, som komma under namn af Calicioidea. Tredje 

stycket. Beskrifning pa nya arter af denna familj, med anmarkningar och tillagg vid de forut anforda. K. 

svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl. 1817: 220-244. 

1818. Glyphis and Chiodecton, two new genera of the family of Lichenes, with descriptions and figures 

of the species hitherto discovered. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 12: 35-47. 

Bailey, R. H. & James, P. W. 1977. Distribution maps of lichens in Britain. Map 23. Thelotrema lepadinum 

(Ach.) Ach. Lichenologist9: 175-179. 

Dawson, W. R. 1934. Catalogue of the manuscript in the library of the Linnean Society of London. Part I. 

The Smith papers (the correspondence and miscellaneous papers of Sir James Edward Smith, M.D., 

F.R.S., first President of the Society) . London .


- 1961. A bibliography of the printed works of Dawson Turner. Trans. Camb. Bibliogr. Soc. Ill (3): 

232-256. 

Dickson, J. 1785-1801. Fasciculus plantarum cryptogamicarum britannice. 4 fasc. London. 

Galloway, D. J. 1979. 'Flora Scotiae Supplementum': James Edward Smith's notes on Scottish lichens, 

1784. Lichenologist 11: 307-311. 

1981. Erik Acharius, Olof Swartz and the evolution of generic concepts in lichenology. In A. Wheeler 

& J. H. Price (Eds), History in the service ofsystematics. Society for the Bibliography of Natural History. 

Special Publication 1: 119-127. 

- 1986. Non-glabrous species of Pseudocyphellaria from Southern South America. Lichenologist 18: 

105-168. 

- & Groves, E. W. 1987. Archibald Menzies MD, FLS (1754-1842), aspects of his life, travels and 

collections. Archs nat. Hist. 14: 3-43. 

& James, P. W. 1977. Pseudocyphellaria berberina (G. Forster) D. Gall. & P. James: notes on its 

discovery and synonymy. Lichenologist 9: 95-105. 

Gray, S. F. 1821. A natural arrangement of British plants 

1. London. 

Greville, R. K. 1824. Flora edinensis. Edinburgh. 

1826. Scottish cryptogamic flora 4. Edinburgh. 

Hawksworth, D. L. 1977. Introduction. In E. Acharius, Synopsis methodica lichenum. [Reprint] 

Richmond. 

& Seaward, M. R. D. 1977. Lichenology in the British Isles 1568-1975. An historical and bibliographic 

survey. Richmond. 

1978. Introduction. In D. Turner & W. Borrer, Specimen of a Lichenographia britannica. 

[Reprint] Richmond. 

Hooker, W. J. 1821. Flora scotica 2. London. 

1833. The English flora of Sir James Edward Smith 5 (1). London. 

- 1840. Brief memoir of the life of Olaf Swartz, with extracts from his letters. Accompanied by a 

portrait. /. Bot. 2: 382-392. 

[There is an error in pagination of the journal seen (BM): pages 381-384 occur twice, so the paper is 15 pages long.] 

Howe, R. H. 1912. The lichens of the Linnean Herbarium with remarks on Acharian material. Bull. Torrey 

hot. Club 39: 199-203. 

Hudson, W. 1762. Flora anglica. London. 

1778. Flora anglica 2. 2nd ed. London. 

J0rgensen, P. M. 1975. Contributions to a monograph of the Mallotium-hairy Leptogium species. Herzogia 

3: 433-460. 

Konig, C. & Sims, G. 1804. Retrospect of botanical literature from 1801 to 1803. Ann. Bot. Lond. 1:35-39. 

Laundon, J. R. 1984. The typification of Withering's neglected lichens. Lichenologist 16: 211-239. 

Leighton, W. A. 1851. The British species of angiocarpous lichens, elucidated by their sporidia. London. 

- 1854. Monograph of the British Graphideae. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. II, 13: 81-97, 202-212, 264-279, 

387-395,436-496. 

1856. Monograph of the British Umbilicariae. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. II, 18: 273-297. 

Lightfoot, J. 1777. Flora scotica 2. London. 

Lindsay, W. L. 1856. A popular history of British lichens. London. 

Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species plantarum 2. Stockholm. 

Mudd, W. 1861. A manual of British lichens. Darlington. 

Relhan, R. 1785. Flora cantabrigiensis. Cambridge. 

Sernander, R. 1917. Acharius, Erik. Sv. Biograf. Lexicon 1: 37^40. 

Sibthorp, J. 1794. Flora oxoniensis. Oxford. 

Smith, A. L. 1921. Lichens. Cambridge. 

Smith, J. E. 1790-1814. English botany. 36 vols. London. 

1791a. Descriptions often species of Lichen collected in the south of Europe. Trans Linn. Soc. Lond. 

1: 81-85. 

1794. Remarks on the Abbe Wulfen's descriptions of lichens; published among his rare plants of 

Carniola, in Professor Jacquin's collectanea, Vol. II. 11 2. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 2: 10-14. 

Station, F. 1971. Linnaeus and the Linneans. Utrecht. 

Stearn, W. T. 1957. The boat lily (Rhoeospathacea). Baileya 5: 195-198. 

- 1988. James Edward Smith (1759-1828): first President of the Linnean Society and his herbarium. 

Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 96: 199-216. 

Swartz, O. P. 1806a. Extract of a letter from Professor Olof Swartz of Stockholm. Ann. Bot. Lond. 2: 

583-589. 

Taylor, T. 1836. In J. Mackay, Flora hibernica 2. Dublin.


Tibell, L. 1978. Comments on Caliciales exsiccatae I. Lichenologist 10: 171-178. 

Tibell, L. 1987. Typification of names of infrageneric taxa described by Acharius and placed by him in 

Caliciales. Annls hot. fenn. 24: 257-280. 

Turner, D. 1804a. Description of four new British lichens. Trans. Linn. Soc. Land. 7: 86-89. 

Ann. Bot. Lond. 1: 377-386. 

- 1808. Descriptions of eight new British lichens. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 9: 135-150. 

[ ] 1804ft. Review [of Acharius's Methodus]. 

& Borrer, W. 1839. Specimen of a lichenographia britannica; or, attempt at a history of the British 

lichens. Yarmouth. 

Vitikainen, O. 1976. Erik Acharius. In E. Acharius, Lichenographia universalis. [Reprint] Richmond. 

Walker, M. 1988. James Edward Smith. London. 

Withering, W. 1776. A botanical arrangement of all the vegetables naturally growing in Great Britain 2. 

London.


MACROLICHENS OF EAST AFRICA 

T. D. V. Swinscow & H. Krog 

Dr Swinscow was formerly Deputy Editor of the British Medical Journal. 

Dr Krog is Professor of Taxonomic Botany at the University of Oslo. 

This book is based mainly on collections made in the field by the authors. It covers 

77 genera and 629 species. It is the first substantial study of a tropical lichen flora to 

be undertaken by modern research methods. Thin-layer chromatography has been 

used throughout, and the great majority of species have been studied by 

microscopic examination of microtome sections. The nomenclature has been 

thoroughly revised, and in all cases the basionym is given. The book will be 

to students of the lichens of the African continent and valuable to 

indispensable 

readers interested in lichens throughout the tropics. 

Summer 1988, viii -I- 384pp, 185 figs., 16pp 

Hardback. 565 01039 5. 40.00 

colour illustrations.

Titles to be published in Volume 18 

An illustrated catalogue of the type specimens in the Greville diatom herbarium 

By David M. Williams 

Erik Acharius and his influence on English lichenology 

By David J. Galloway 

Seaweeds of the western coast of tropical Africa and adjacent islands: a critical 

assessment. IV. Rhodophyta (Floridae) 2. Genera G. 

By James H. Price, David M. John and George W. Lawson 

A monograph of Dryopteris (Pteridophyta: Dryopteridaceae) in the Indian 

subcontinent 

By Christopher R. Fraser-Jenkins 

Some Cretaceous and Paleogene Trinacria (diatom) species 

By Patricia A, Sims and Robert Ross 

Photoset by Rowland Phototypesetting Ltd, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk 

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd, Dorchester

British Museum (Natural History)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?