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.)
28 JUL1988
© British Museum (Natural History), 1988
The Botany series is edited in the Museum's Department of Botany
Keeper of Botany: Mr J. F. M. Cannon
Editor of Bulletin : Mr J . R. Laundon
Assistant Editors: Dr A. J. Harrington and Miss M. J. Short
ISBN 0 565 08020 2
ISSN 0068-2292 Botany series
VollSNo 2 pp 149-194 British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD Issued 28 July 1988
PRESENTED 0EN1RAL LIBRARY
BRITISH MUSEUM {NATURAL HISTORY),
- 1AUG*988
*— /•
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 167
The Acharius lichens in the British Museum (Natural History) (BM-ACH) 179
Acknowledgements 191
Unpublished correspondence 191
References 192
Synopsis
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 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).
In the extracts of letters used in this account, spelling is kept as in the original documents. In 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 to your inspection those treasures of science which good fortune has thrown in my way, and which I 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, have acted so as to have 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:
'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 age. I 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 any compliment) the most acute of all people. Your observations on my paper on Wulfen's lichens are, I dare say, very just. I shall profit of them when I have an opportunity ... I cannot find the promised Lichen Westringii among those you favoured me with . . . You ask for Lichen exasperatus Lightf. What is it?' (Smith, 1796a).
152 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
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 long to receive the continuation of that work . . . Your Lichen erosus is very distinct from 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.
I had called this New Holland plant Acharia, but finding Professor Thunberg has one of that name 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 Lichenog- raphiae suecicae prodromus for the Linnean Society Library (Figs 1, 2). On 10 February 1800 Smith wrote to Swartz:
'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).
Upon 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
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY
153
»' / , '/in i/\ i- f srnf* t*<*rr*/J, .ffir/rti't-J m
SYKCICAE
AUCTOR
u? u i \ r
hrrk ,:Vh;
,:,:' A', vv.', •• /tV,/ Jl:.,'i)/»v.-, .!'.•«/
V. -. ./.-,.,y. ,»,'•', . .*'-,,. i- j'.v.v'. /;.-/ „-.-,/
Liucopiac ;l)i\.Bjoni; i
Fig. 1 Title page of Lichenographiae suecicae prodromus (Acharius, 1798). J. E. Smith's copy, Library, Linnean Society of London.
Linnean Society for the honour done them by the dedication of so valuable a work. In the meantime beg him to accept of my best thanks, and assurances of sincerest esteem ... I shall take the liberty of having Dr. Acharius proposed as a foreign member of our Linnean Society. Perhaps Mr. Westring too would like to be a member - my compliments to him . ' (Smith , 1800ft) .
In reply Swartz wrote to Smith:
The honour you would confer upon Mr Acharius and Westring in proposing them as members of the Linnean Society, they certainly would esteem very highly; and I dare say you cannot propose worthier men. Both are, as you know, pupils of Linnaeus and of well know ability.' (Swartz, 1801o).
154 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
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
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 155
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 Germany, I 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 your beautiful little publication ... I shall now add no more, except that, if my proposal be not 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 enter omorpha (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
156
DAVID J. GALLOWAY
f,!ii,ki r»fl*». 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; peltis in lobis clon- gatis ailicendcntibus terminahbui pollicis m»- xicnis coccineis,
P,lt,Jt» uUrn. Svet. Pilfl'f. Lich-n atdicus Lim. K«t. Pr. ^. Hiffl. Lil-
jttl. G«««. M»B. Giael. Sylt. Linn. Liciien antarakus Lm». ]*c<j». BeS^rJi. Goal. Syft. Linn.
Icon 7«f«. Mifc. T. IO- f- I.
Habitat ill campij fylvaticis plerumque fub junipcrij.
Obf. £»/««• «« ttrr'u *i Cat. ftltr. A*t*rtt\tum fitit »((*rrii t*bm (ftcin.
471. LICHEN rif»finaiu — coriaccus tdfcendent
incifo lobatus plumbeo vire{ccns (iibtus ivo- 'S. iiias pallefcent fiibvillotns ; peltis marginalU bus puliicis rrflexis rubric.
T lit lit* ItfuplKllA. SVCI StHfUf.
Lich'/n retupinatus L»»». K«ft. Pr. a F»ffr.
LiljtU. G«»«. WWf. »p. Itrq.LiiW.MW.
Cr«/t. M«tf. /?«rft. Tent. Nat. #<£.
jr»Jw. G*e/. Syft. Linn. IVlti^cra reiupinara SthruL Spicil. Fchigera tomcntofa Hiffm. Dcui. FL Icon. T<«^«. Coll. 4. T. i». t i. H. DM. T 764. DiWw. Hid. Mule. T. a8- f. 105. M-chil. Gen. T. 44. f. I. z. H*-
Fig. 3 J. E. Smith's description of Lichen cellulosus in his annotated copy of Lichenographiae Library, Linnean Society of London.
Js
Hab'iat in tnncis & rsmis ailmrum prfcfertim
!!;•!. i'* a'b.i- & ad tj-.-i. OSf. /V/j/ .«>« «M^W d" /»^.'«* rr»<r«j mjra.
/</ Jtfftnxthiti tirii , ttTtmaut f^riSefmi , »«
umla'att, iciuiter liriaitrn finhr,stn, m*r?t<si & lnrcrf.cie p*!vtrulr*i:t. Lsn>mr*m t(;ctt tutirAum itfal firmctn , lurifirjti.
177. LICHEN fx*iftri**> — m-mbr»nscei!» nj!lMrfl». vtis (ahsus lias-is^mi-is !Jri-i,Mi* IEVIS, folii* »dfc;ndeniil)i!s cotnpliciiit !ac-ro liCuslaiis crispis; (cutrllis plino convt?\i» bajiij. tUtinn* i*iifm*iim Sv'et. K»t!*f. L'chrn jju'pcrniiit tint. R»fc. Pr. j. W«-?J.
. .
lhf«t |->,urn. «'*//; ap Jacq. Af«.? Afw r«r !JroJr. /^{. Rtth. 1'cnt. G»w/. Sy[L Linn.
Lichen nivalit var. /3 I.riis Tr«*. Spicil.
Squaraarij junipcrin* Hffm. i'l. IJch.
Ixjbaru junipcrina Wefai. Df.it. Fl.
Icon. H«f«t. 11, Lic!> I'. 7. f 2. f;*"/ En.
Lkh. T. iz f. i. Ft, D<». T. 1004. Bxxt.
Cent. T. 7. t j. Habitat ra aibutculis prarfsriim juniperini?.
- LICTIEH fifdflri — m-mbranacci!5 fiilp!ii(rni$ fubfus fiUvut utrimius lzvi» , f >lii.« drprcsl* complica'is ii leqinLifr laciniaiis margins ad- fcenricmibot piilvcrulcnrlt navisrunis, 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.
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 157
(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 have intended, and, if you do not object, I would propose to you to exchange every species of this
* see Bailey & James (1977).
158 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
— 60. — r
mtt tin tut in iff unit Jrfrt-fi, imamrgiutiii &
gi*t «/«•• < fr*/t* frtvfii-mtt , f «/? (,,nn i at,
h»e Vf": fcmellti demam mt}ntlmt 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;<; Aimiirissntiqiiis. /%$". Jett+ieMii*- A
OM. Craft* fir tl*Itm miHMI flit <jr fin ltrdit.4
Hie & f» COafluMM frtm'ftae fail frf *!• / /
ttri *tml AuStrti Hrmrrti, unlit /jumjmt v*l' ^ /%£^ ~/Ltc*a**
4e an.l't^**, Gtm*l**m timtn hfmf itft i^mmti fftfitm v*rn nft»tinr u kfbfrui q*trmitm ixtmpturm , mn*» L/xt ptfru fgotl*. Put fffdi JiftruMi V'crntc«ii» cakaria H»f». D'*t. Fl. eriflu if-
faff U3c* , fcmi'Hii ttxtuxn ftrn * I'uft
mtrfllMUU t flljft
Lichen crctaccus Ehrh. Dfjir. er*f* ftrtiu/* trtiMtt,
13,6- LICHEN cnflnati— cniflaceu* rimofjJ glauco eiiicralri-i'S; (cutellis nur^inatis deiaum coo- vcxis ccufluemibus lotis xri*.
COIinurn* U'thn, S»«r/«.. *»ft. P'. 2. /r
Dickt. Htfm. Knum. Ktih. Tent.
Verrucari* coufluent W>U. Htfm, 1 1. Ut^ & Heat. Fl.
Vtrrucaxia uitio ciiicrc* ^ISikJiu.
Icon.
Fig. 5 J. E. Smith's description of Lichen tessellatus in his annotated copy of Lichenographiae . . . Library, Linnean Society of London.
genus native of our countries. I have marked 6 with numbers, and upon these I beg your opinion.' (Turner, 18026).
In his reply to Turner, Swartz wrote:
'Acharius works now upon a general synopsis of the Lichens which will be good . . .' (Swartz, 1802a).
A few days later he wrote to Smith:
'Acharius is now working on his new opusculum upon the Lichen tribe. He goes on upon quite a new principle and I think it will do him honour. We have lately had a consulta [sic] in order to settle a number of undetermined points. It will be printed very soon I hope. He rejoiced greatly by getting your last favour.' (Swartz, 18026).
Turner had by now begun writing long and informative letters to Swartz about the progress of botany in England, as well as keeping up a lively lichenological dialogue:
'I trust there is not the least doubt of your having received long before this time not only the parcel which I sent thro' the medium of Mr Dryander, but also the copy of my Synopsis, which, on the 31 May, I consigned to the care of our London merchant, who promised to forward it to you by the earliest opportunity. I fully intended to have sent you some more plants at the same time with the book, and also to have thanked you for your friendly letter of the 13 April, but I was called upon for it sooner than I expected, and since then have hardly had a single moment to myself, for in the beginning of June I set out from Yarmouth, proceeding as fast as I could to Ireland, where I stayed 16 days, examining the environs of Dublin, and afterwards returned thro' Angelsea and North Wales, so that I am but just home again.
I had expected great botanical treasures in Ireland, and had purposed penetrating into the southern part of that little explored Island, but various events contributed to disappoint me, for my time was short; travelling in Ireland is very tedious; and above all, Dr Scott, Professor of Botany in
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 159
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:
'Acharius works upon his Lichenographia, and I think the printing will begin soon. He has told me 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
160 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
<»' ' X (
%/ l\S<*+? *J *^ fc* * *^*«
' " METHODUS
QUA OMNES DETECTOS
LICHENES
SECUNDUM ORGANA CARPOMORPHA
AD GENERA, SPECIES ET VARIETATES
REDIGERE ATQUE OBSERVATIONIBUS ILLUSTRARE TENTAVIT
ERIK ACHARIUS. M. D..
PHYS. 1'ROVINC. OSTROGOTH!^, AD REG. NO-
SOC. VADST MtD. PRIM. ORD. REG. ACAD.
iCIENT. STOtXH. &OCIET. PHYSTOGR. XL'ND.
PHYS. GOTTlrsG. ETC. SODAilS, SOCIET.
I'HYTOGK. CUTTING. MEMBH. HONOR.
Seclio
inor.
Cum Tabiilis &nc,'m Iconcs novarum Speclerum et Figures charatt. Genericorwn exhibcntiluts.
STOCKHOLMI^,
IMPENSIS F. D. D. U L R i c H.
T Y * i K C. F. M A R Q tf A R »
1803. ,•
Fig. 6 Title Page of Methodus . . . (Acharius, 1803a). J. E. Smith's copy, Library, Linnean Society of London.
British and Swedish lichen in our several collections, however common, and telling you that I had then sent no mosses, because Mr Dickson had promised me to supply you himself ... If your herbarium be rich in duplicates of Lichens, I should very much wish to make with you the exchange I have mentioned above; and, if you like it, I would extend the proposal also to foreign species. My collection is already the best in this country, and I will spare neither trouble nor expense to make it one of the most perfect in the world . . . My Ulvographia occupies me, but I still think of a general Fucologia, and a Lichenographia Britannica.' (Turner, 1802d).
The publication of Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenes (Acharius, 1803) (Figs 6, 7) was first intimated to Smith by Acharius in a letter dated 28 April 1803 (Acharius, 1803b), and in a letter from Swartz shortly after:
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY
161
.-. -..
/
/- ^.V^-. <~
•* •» *-*•».- ***,
;r/:A
/,£_„...,. .
VIRIS CELEBERRIMIS
BOTANICIS
NOSTRI TEMPORIS
INCLTTISSIMIS CONSUMMATISSTMIS
CPUSCt'LUM HOCCE
D. D. D.
AUCTO*.
Fig. 7 Fly leaf of Methodus . . . presented by Acharius to the Rev. John Harriman (1760-1831). Library, Linnean Society of London .
'. . . most impatiently do I now wait for the arrival of what you have promised to send me and my friend Acharius. May it have a better fate than the sendings last year which appear to be lost! This new unhappy War I am afraid will occasion new impediments for our literary intercourse. If I am happy to receive anything from you I shall inform you directly as Dr Acharius undoubtedly also will do. His Methodus Lichenum is already printed, and I have at his desire sent you and Sir Joseph Banks a copy within these three weeks by a countryman who may at present be arrived in London. Please to ask for your parcel at Sir Jos. Banks's. The Supplement is still wanting, it is printing actually at Liepzig, and you may probably have it in the Autumn.' (Swartz, 1803a) (Fig. 8).
Turner, who was preparing a paper on some new lichens for the Linnean Society's Transactions (Turner, 1803« , 1804a) wrote about this to Swartz:
'What would I not give were you near enough to inspect and correct my manuscript? I have no friend in England who is able to do me such an office, and for want of this, I am but too certain I shall fall into many errors. I presume from your letter that Dr Acharius has already published his Methodus Lichenum, and I hope therefore that before many months our booksellers will have imported it. I shall look forward to the receipt of it with much eagerness, for the Lichens are so very favourite a tribe with me, and I am never without hopes of one day writing myself a Lichenographia after which I shall consider myself "donatum jam sude".' (Turner, 18036).
In response to Turner's second parcel of lichens to replace the first that had not reached Sweden, Swartz replied:
To my particular satisfaction I found even in the same parcel an excellent heap of Lichens, by which I have got a good deal of instruction. But in order to give you a more adequate opinion about them, I communicated them instantly with my friend Dr Acharius; whose knowledge of this tribe is
162 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
SUPPLEMENTUM
SPECIES QUAMPLURES NOVAS DESCRIP«
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).
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 163
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, but, from something I lately heard, I suspect it never reached him . . . 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 very ill 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 supplement I 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
164 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
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 glad you received my second parcel, which was of more consequence. I beg leave to make a few 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 duplicatus I 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, margine infiexo crenulato. 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-sub- imbricatis 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 membrana- ceo rlibro *!bo subtus atro, laciniis subim- bricatis 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 duplicata: thallo znembranacco
laxo ghbro albo subttis atro, laciniis multt-
fjdo-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].'
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 165
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, if he 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 correspondence between us should grow far more frequent than it has even hitherto been . . .
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
166 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
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
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 167
proposed by Dr Acharius in the nomenclature of the Lichens, however troublesome it may be to us 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 quousque fici 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
168 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
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 hardly supposed I 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:
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 169
'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 express my thoughts in the manner I intend. I received a few days ago the very kind and instructive 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).
170
DAVID J. GALLOWAY
'Umt./H hf^Cm
Z^^^fn/tr, ~ •<? f.*i* ''' ***" "*" <* »**
'iT, .f< <7W/
^ ** gyle* rtn4 atde* o**"c*"f6v
"(\9+ '•'Xcj/Hsi'.tf* F
,*f<tt** ,i*+&ASsfJt^i .
^
. n"****
Fig. 10 Letter from Acharius to J. E. Smith. Smith Correspondence (1:26), Archives, Linnean Society of London.
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 171
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. Though this list may in some measure have been altered before the completion of the 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 past; I 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 ll/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 must be silent. Please to write to Dr Smith about this affair so that it may be put in order. I have even 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).
172 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
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 Gottingen, but now probably at a stop, since I, by reason of the war have not been able to send the continuation of the manuscript. I 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
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 173
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 (Acharius, 1814), wrote to them both on 26 October 1813. To Smith he observed:
'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 complete its collections with the new discovered Lichenes.
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,
174 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
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.
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY
175
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 another season.' (Swartz, 1813a).
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
176
DAVID J. GALLOWAY
A.. 4tV>.'*-»*1.41' /
f— . * ' ~ '
'^MBiJiiEg^
LECIDEA. GENUS VI.
j - ..... -
LECIDEA. Aca
i /><wva Scutclla & FWof ,
Character N at u rails.
APOTH. Pateftula sessilis et thallo adpressa vel su- perficialis, orbicularis vel per rautuam pressionem angulosa & difformis, duriu- scula, substantia &, plerumque colore thallo dissimiliinia; saepius atra, sod eti- am varie colorata.
Discus raro concavus, frequenter plani- usculus vel per aetatem convexus, crusta subspongiosa opere cellulari sporis reple- to fabricata tectus, supra nudus vel pru- inosus.
' Margo (proprius) crassiusculus obtusus in- teger persistens, .colore utplurimum dj- a3. sci;
:*£+,
LECIDEJE Genus a Parmelias optime distinftum, licrt hahitu 8c forma Thalli atque etiam Apotheciorum it» u ''iris conveniant utraque hzcce Genera. Tantum ytvo inter se difierunt, quantum Patellulae a Scutellis disced mt. — In Lecideis variis pariter atque in qui- busdam Urce.olariis margo apotheciorum accessorius oc- currit, a crusta quidein formatus sed neutiquam pattern eoni'fi efuciens, 8C ideo spurius a me diftus. Ex. gr. Ijtcidta h&mat omma , aliaeque species patellulis subim- mersis.
Qbs. Lichen atrattts, Lich. Prodr. p. 63., Fungls^po- tius v»dnumeratur. (Est euim Penza Lichtnoidts " 9OON. Syaops. Fung.). '
r^
Fig. 13 The Rev. John Harriman's version of Plate II from Lichenographia universalis, in his annotated copy of Methodus. Library, Linnean Society of London.
abroad, but also within the limits of native shores, are very considerable. He will certainly be very glad at the news of his Synopsis having reached you.' (Swartz, 1816).
In 1818, six months before his death, Swartz wrote his last letter to Turner:
'Having just an opportunity of sending some litterary articles to London, I take one liberty to wait upon you with the enclosed containing several of the Lichenological Memoirs of my friend Acharius, which have been at different times inserted in the Acta Academiae R. scientiarum. And as I am
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY
177
isvt** to*,** h/***t? -£*m<i jZt^&xS- &s£*. . f,
Fig. 14 Part of text of letter from Acharius to J. E. Smith. Smith Correspondence (1:27), Archives, Linnean Society of London.
178
DAVID J. GALLOWAY
, . <»/
SYNOPSIS METHODICA LICHENUM,
OMNES HUJUS ORDINIS NATITRALTS
PETECTAS PLANTAS, QITAS, S ECU 1ST-
BUM GENERA, SPECIES ET VARIETA.
TES DISPOSUIT, CHARACTERIBUS ET
DIFFERENTIIS EMENDATIS DEF1NI-
VIT, NEC KON SYNONYMIS ET
OBSJERVATIONIBUS SELECTIS
1LLUSTRAVIT
ACCTOB.,
ERIK ACHARIUS
£QVE> 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. Pat- toon. Gout*!!. HIST. NAT, BEROLIN. MXDIC. Sr«c.
ITC. SoDALli. SoCIETT. HlST. KAT. MoiCOT.
WETTKHW. ET PBTTOCB. GOTTIKO.
MEMBR. HONOR.
«*«€•€«€€«©£«
XT StMTJUt'S SVAMBOIlG IT So«.
1844*
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).
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 History) the concepts of Acharius still have considerable relevance to contemporary studies in lichen taxonomy (e.g. Tibell, 1978, 1987).
* Acharius (1815, 1816, 1817); see also Tibell (1987).
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 179
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).
180
DAVID J. GALLOWAY
«£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.
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY
181
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).
182 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
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
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY
183
v. cicatricosa v. radians v. latypea v. pantherina v. monticola v. cyanea v. illuta
Table 1 - cont .
45.fumosa
46. cechumena
47. v. athroocarpa
48. v. testudinea
49. pelidna
50. carphina
51. lapicida 52.
53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.
59. v. lithophila
60. conglomerata
61. coracina
62. enter oleuca 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. \ll. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134.
135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157.
v. myriocarpa (incl. L. pinicola)
v. athroa
v. rugulosa
\.punctata
v. saprophila dryina
v. Hlacina arthonloides muscorum
\.geochroa citrine I la uliginosa
v.humosa dolosa
v. roburnea synothea pezizoidea
albocaerulescens abietina epipolia speirea
v. cretacea
v. calcaria corticola
v. leucocelis
\.farinosa umbrina Dilleniana alabastrina
v. anceps
v. rosella icmadophila
v. aemginosa
v. elveloides carneola v. cornea pineti
v. chlorotica
v. acerina
v. arceutina
v. hypopta
v. erysibe vernalis
v. sphaeroides anthracina atrorufa panaeola cinereofusca
\.jungermanniae caesiorufa aurantiaca callosyne saxetana luteoalba
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
v. brotera & v. flocculosa 188. erosa
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. clavicular e
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. v err near ioides
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. decolor ata 236.fuliginosa
237. vulgata
238. siderella
239. v. rufescens
240. denigrata
241. v. me liana
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
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY
185
Table 1 - cont.
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
186
DAVID J. GALLOWAY
Table 1 - cont.
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. fl«w?//a
428. v. sordidescens
429. //Vida
430. parella
431. v.pallescens
432. v. upsaliensis
433. v. tumidula
434. tartar ea
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
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY
187
Table 1 - cont.
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. cor us cans
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#M«i
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
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY
189
Table 1 - cont.
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. tuber culosa 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
— v. byssoides
Isidium
761. laevigatum
762. westringii
763. coccodes
764. v. leucoteum
765. phymatodes
766. v. phragmeum
767. corallinum
Stereocaulon 168.paschale
190
DAVID J. GALLOWAY
Table 1 - cont.
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. v. capillaris
783. 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. tuber culata
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. v. muricata
817. crocea
818. divergens
819. b/co/or
820. v. melaneira
821. /arcata
v. nitida
822. pubescens
823. hispidula
824. ochroleuca
825. v. nigrescens
Usnea
826. melaxantha Sll.florida
828. v. strigosa
829. v. v///0sa
830. v.
832. v. comosa
833. v. /wrte
834. v. glabrata
835. barbata
836. v. implexa
837. v. articulata
838. 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
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 191
Table 1 - cont.
861. \.lophaeum 880. subtile
862. microphyllum 881. tenuissimum
863. myriococcum 882. muscicola
864. synalissum 883. pannosum
865. glomerulosum
oe-s c . Leprana
866. saturnmum
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 892.fuliginosa 811.furvum - 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.
192 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
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 .
ERIK ACHARIUS AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH LICHENOLOGY 193
- 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.
194 DAVID J. GALLOWAY
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.
[ ] 1804ft. Review [of Acharius's Methodus]. Ann. Bot. Lond. 1: 377-386.
- 1808. Descriptions of eight new British lichens. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 9: 135-150.
— & 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.
British Museum (Natural History)
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 indispensable to students of the lichens of the African continent and valuable to readers interested in lichens throughout the tropics.
Summer 1988, viii -I- 384pp, 185 figs., 16pp colour illustrations. Hardback. 0 565 01039 5. £40.00
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