zyxwvuts zyxwvu zyxw zyx zy Botanical Journal of the Linnean Socieb (1994), 115: 261-405. With 67 figures Linnaean lichen names and their typification PER M. JBRGENSEN*, PETER W. JAMES AND CHARLES E. JARVIS Botany Department, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD Received Jury 1993, acceptedfor publication April 19!?4 The typification of the 109 names of lichens described by Linnaeus is discussed; 50 lectotypes, 24 epitypes and eight neotypes are newly designated. All written sources of which we are aware have been consulted, including original manuscripts. The relevant specimens in Linnaeus’ lichen herbarium (LINN) have been carefully evaluated. All these elements are discussed, as well as the validity of previous typifications. Most names (72.5%) can be typified in a way that avoids any changes in their current interpretation, but proposals for conservation are necessary for 17 species names if their current usage is to be upheld. Six Linnaean names which have not been in use for a long time are treated as species non satis notae since no original material has been traced and the protologues are too vague to allow the species names to be identified with certainty. They will be proposed for rejection under Art. 56 of the Tokyo Code together with five names-Lichen cornucopioides, Lichen fahlunensis, L. plicatus, L. rangiferinus var. sylvaticus and Mucor lichenoides-the typification of which has unfortunate nomenclatural consequences. zyxwvuts zyxwvu ADDITIONAL KEY WORDS:-Conservation nomenclatural stability. & rejection of names ~ Historical botany CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . The Linnaean lichen herbarium . . Other sources for typification . . . Previous typifications . . . . . Methods . . . . . . . . Typifications . . . . . . . Index of Linnaean lichen names and their Acknowledgements . . . . . References . . . . . . . Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1 262 266 267 268 269 371 383 384 387 INTRODUCTION Linnaeus regarded lichens as the ‘rustici pauperrimi’-the poor little peasants-of nature, an opinion which is reflected in his somewhat arbitrary treatment of the group. In Species plantarum (1 7 5 3 ) he includes only a relatively small number of the species then known, a situation for which we must be thankful. In those cases where he did not have access to material, he depended mostly on interpretation of illustrations in the works of other botanists and often made errors. Nor does he seem to have been particularly interested in seeing exotic material, as was the case for the flowering plants. Only five species names zyxwvut *Permanent address: Botanical Institute, University of Bergen, Alligaten 41, N-5007 Bergen, Norway. 0024-4074/94/080261+ 145 $08.00/0 26 1 0 1994 The Linnean Society of London 262 zyxwvutsrqpon zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. are based on extra-European material, the majority being from northern Europe, an area in which about 2000 species are now known to occur. Linnaeus thus recognized only about 5% of the lichen flora of that region, and in most cases he only gave a diagnosis without any further description or discussion of the taxa. This lack of interest in, and knowledge of, lichens by Linnaeus has made our task particularly difficult. Our main objective has been to avoid name-changes as far as possible under the present Code and at the same time to provide a stable basis for the future usage of these names. This is particularly important since most of the lichens Linnaeus described are common, widespread and wellknown; many (39) are type species for the commonest lichen genera such as Cladonia, Lecidea, Lobaria, Parmelia, Peltigera, Ramalina and Usnea. Linnaeus placed most of them in his genus Lichen (101, one of these being a non-lichenized ascomycete), but he also named a few in Byssus (four sterile pulverulent crusts), Mucor (four Caliciales) and Tremella (one, a Leptogium), a total of 109 lichen taxa, three of which were described as varieties. Dillenius (1742), by comparison, treated about 200 species, some with many unnamed, infraspecific taxa (for details, see Crombie, 1880). zyxw T H E LINNAEAN LICHEN HERBARIUM The lichen collection in Linnaeus’ own herbarium at the London Linnean Society (LINN) (Linnean, used when referring to the Society, is based on the Swedish name LinnC; in our descriptions we use Linnaean, derived from Linnaeus, the Latin form of his name) is relatively small comprising 324 sheets, 313 of which are to be found under the genus Lichen. Two previous comprehensive studies of this collection have been published, that by Vainio (1886) concentrating on the identification of the specimens, and another by Howe (1912) with a more critical evaluation of their origin and suitability as type specimens. The analytical catalogue of Savage (1945) of the entire herbarium has been an indispensable aid in our work. As noted by Howe (1912) the collection contains not only specimens collected or annotated by Linnaeus, but also material added after his death by his son (C. von Linnk fil.) and a few added by J. E. Smith. No more than 93 sheets in the collection can be attributed to Linnaeus himself; these alone can be considered as original material for the appropriate names involved. Some of these collections lack any annotation apart from the epithet and therefore cannot normally be used as types, as they are likely to have been added to the herbarium at a later date. Most of the original sheets, however, are numbered, usually with the account number from Species plantarum ( 1753) and in some cases also from Flora Suecica (1 745). The presence of Flora Suecica numbers on so many of the lichen sheets is remarkable since such numbers seem to appear extremely rarely in other parts of the herbarium; in fact none have been noted amongst the flowering plants. We regard the 44 sheets with a double set of numbers as without doubt having been available for consultation by Linnaeus when he was writing Species plantarurn. These, with one exception discussed below, are all marked with a dot by Linnaeus in his manuscript list (Fig. 1) which according to Howe (1912) was, “presumably compiled in the year 1755”. Howe’s judgement is almost certainly based on that of Jackson (1907) whose conclusions that a dot zyxw zyxw LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyxwv 263 zyxwvutsrq Figure 1. The lichens (combined from two pages) in the herbarium list of Linnaeus which is believed to have been made before October 1755, the dots possibly indicating presence of material in his herbarium at that time. 264 zyxwvuts zyxwv zyxwvu zy P. M. J0RGENSEN E l AL. zyxwvuts corresponded to a specimen in Linnaeus’ herbarium, according to Savage ( 1945), are “mere presumptions”. Undoubtedly Jackson’s evidence is circumstantial and his conclusions somewhat subjective, but an examination of the Linnaean lichen list confirms rather than contradicts his dating. If it is a list of specimens in the herbarium, then it must have been compiled before the second edition of Flora suecica (October 1755) as Lichen saccatus, described there for the first time and now present in the Linnaean collections, is not included. There is only a single noteworthy exception to sheets with double numbering (see above) being marked with a dot ( = present in 1755), that of Lichen cornucopioides. This has no dot indicated, but still bears the numbers of both publications on the herbarium sheet. As discussed below (p. 296) there are several problems relating to the provenance of this sheet, including the question of a possible remounting a t a later date. Although we are unable to give a full explanation for this special case, it appears to be an exception of little general consequence. Howe (1912) also thought that Lichen velleus was lacking a dot. This, however, is a misinterpretation on his part, the dot being attached as an extension to the lower part of the figure 5 (Fig. 1); note the very flat, not hooked, extensions of the bases of the numeral five normally characteristic of Linnaeus’ handwriting. There are twelve names marked with dots, for which the existing sheets have only Species plantarum numbers. Of these, five are described in Flora suecica from where the diagnostic phrase-names were taken. These specimens are unlikely to have been the basis of these protologues, and in all but one case, that of L. vulpinus, these specimens are either not in accord with the protologue, or have proved troublesome or doubtful in their status or identity ( L . caninus, L. chalybeiformis, L. lanatus, L. sanguinarius). When Linnaeus incorporated these specimens in his herbarium is uncertain, as he occasionally added Species plantarum numbers for reference after the publication of the book. H e obviously often codified the annotations on the herbarium sheets to such numbers, adding the epithets later and then sometimes making mistakes in the process, as in the case of L. omphalodes and L. spgius (see pp. 308, 332-333). His son, and occasionally other botanists, have inserted some of the missing names. If we can trust Linnaeus’ list, the above-mentioned five species were present in the Linnaean herbarium in 1755. The remaining seven taxa (L. carpineus, L. islandicus var. tenuissimus, L. parietinus, L. proboscideus, L. resupinatus, L. roccella, L. upsaliensis) were only described in Species plantarum and therefore cannot have Flora suecica numbers. I n all but one case (L.parietinus) we are reasonably sure, from the annotations on the sheets, that Linnaeus had these specimens in his herbarium when he wrote Species plantarum. Only in a very few cases are localities and collectors indicated. This information is present for all extra-European material (five sheets), Lichen divaricatus received from J. C. D. Schreber (Fig. 26), the eight specimens sent by Reverend J. Burgess from Scotland (Fig. 10) in 1771 and a single Scandinavian collection, L. saccatus, collected by his Danish student, Tycho Holm, in Norway (Fig. 56), a total of 16 specimens. If Jackson’s interpretation of Linnaeus’ list is to be believed, only a single original specimen listed there, that of L. pallescens, is now missing from the Linnaean herbarium. There are, however, some more noteworthy gaps in the collection. No specimens which with certainty can be referred to Flora lapponica, LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyxwvu 265 zyxwvutsrqp zyxwvutsr zyxwvuts Figure 2. Drawings among the notes of lichens in the field notebook from Linnaeus’ travels in Lapland 1732. T h e upper ( 1 ) a specimen of the Chdonia rangifrina group, most probably C. stellaris; the lower ( 2 ) definitely Cladonia cervicornis subsp. verticillata, which he in Speciesplantarum placed as a n unnamed variety of Chdonia pyxidata. have been discovered. The only exception may be the specimen of L. arcticus (1273.180) inscribed ‘Lapp.’. Even this case, however, is difficult to prove as it may refer to a later collection from Lapponia by one of his students. I n addition, there are seven specimens where a reference to this work is written on the back of the sheets. This appears to be a later addition which was made simultaneously on all these sheets. A specimen which possibly contradicts this interpretation is 1273.310, which is not named or annotated with the numbers from. Flora suecica or Species plantarum, but has the Flora Lapponica reference on the back. If this inscription was a later addition, why is there no reference to the more recent works? Linnaeus is known to have presented most of his Flora lapponica material to Johannes Burman (Stearn, 1957), but no lichens are present in this collection, now in the Library of the Institut de France, Paris (see Fries, 1861). The lichens may not have been included in the gift, and only a few may have existed. I n the introduction to Flora lapponica, Linnaeus complains about the difficulties he experienced on his journey, and how they had adversely affected his collecting, particularly that of the cryptogams. This remark is presented rather as an excuse for not having brought home more of these groups, and for having to base the descriptions of quite a number of the species on the earlier drawings from Rudbeck’s Lapponian travels (1695). Linnaeus also made copious field notes and simple drawings (Fig. 2) which may have been the only basis for the later descriptions. Whatever the reasons may be, the absence of the original collections is most unfortunate since he described some arctic-alpine species, the names of which he later misapplied to specimens from southern regions, some of which survive in his herbarium and are the only possible elements for typification; the most notable example is that of Lichen oliuaceus (p. 332). Another remarkable fact is the absence of saxicolous, crustose species among the Linnaean material; not even common species like Rhizocarpon geographicurn (L.) DC. are represented. This suggests that Linnaeus did not carry the equipment enabling him to collect these species from the rocks, and therefore his descriptions must have been made from field-notes, a method which has resulted 266 zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqpo P. M. J0RGENSEN ET AL. in particularly difficult problems of interpretation for subsequent lichenologists, the present authors included. He may also have found such pieces of rock difficult to incorporate into his herbarium, because those rock specimens which he must have possessed, received from his Danish student Zoega, are no longer present in the collection. Perhaps, because of their bulk, he kept such items in a separate box which was later lost or thrown away. I t is also of particular interest to observe the substantial contribution made to the lichen herbarium by Linnaeus filius, whose reputation as a botanist has not been particularly favourable. I n contrast to other plant groups, there are more specimens and annotations made by the son than by his father, and it seems likely that with advancing years Linnaeus left these ‘rustici pauperrimi’ to his son. Actually, we suspect that some of the species in the later works are attributable to Linnaeus fil., rather than to Linnaeus. All the eight lichens sent by Burgess in 1771 are annotated by Linnaeus filius, including a new species, Lichen burgessii. His interest in the group is further substantiated by a letter from Zoega to Linnaeus, dated 8 August 1764, in which Zoega reports on an excursion with Linnaeus’ son at Stenbrohult where they obviously paid considerable attention to the lichens. Several species are mentioned, including L. globiferus L., the Linnaeus filius specimens of which are present a t LINN. I n general the identifications of Linnaeus filius are sound, and in many cases his specimens are better collections than those made by his father (e.g. Lichen chalybeiformis), indicating a more genuine interest in the group. zy OTHER SOURCES FOR TYPIFICATION Linnaeus frequently cites earlier polynomials from other sources in his protologues, some of which are associated with illustrations. Under Art. 9.9 (footnote) of the Code (Greuter et al., 1994), such cited illustrations form part of the ‘original material’ for a name, and as such they are therefore eligible for selection as lectotypes. I n a number of cases here, these illustrations represent the only remaining original material available. Apart from his own works, Linnaeus most frequently refers to Michelius (1729) and Dillenius (1742). From his introduction to Flora lapponica it is obvious that he particularly admired Michelius’ taxonomy of cryptograms and rightly so, as this botanist was very advanced for his time in his understanding of these groups. However, it is the citations from Dillenius’ work which call for special comment. Since Crombie (1880) revised the Dillenian herbarium, it has been the custom to typify Linnaean lichen names on specimens in this herbarium (OXF), an early example being that of Howe (1910a). This has been necessary due to the frequent absence of relevant material in LINN, the accessibility, good curation and completeness of the Dillenian herbarium at Oxford, and the common belief that Linnaeus did study the material during his short visit to England in 1736. Although at the end of his stay in London Linnaeus did go to Oxford to visit Dillenius, he stayed there only for a very short time, and the available sources give no indication that he studied the lichen specimens personally. I t is significant that in the introduction to Species plantarurn, Linnaeus does not list the Dillenian herbarium as being one of those which he had studied. From the original manuscript of Species plantarum it is clear that he entered and corrected the Dillenian citations in exactly the same way as for other works, and zyxwv zyxwvutsr zyxw LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 267 we are convinced that he did this only by interpreting the illustrations of Dillenius’ Historia muscorum alone. Crombie ( 1880: 553) bluntly and succinctly refers to this process as “simply guesswork”. Because of this, Linnaeus made several simple mistakes which he would hardly have done if he had had access to the actual specimens (e.g. Lichen byssoides and L. vubinus, pp. 281, 367). We are therefore of the opinion that the Dillenian illustrations only can be used for typification, with epitypes (Art. 9.7) to stabilize their interpretation. I n most cases we have used the corresponding specimens in the Dillenian herbarium as epitypes, but when these are poorly developed, atypical or not in accordance with Linnaeus’ understanding of the illustration, we have chosen other and better material. It is easy to understand the problems Linnaeus had in interpreting the Dillenian illustrations, not only in view of his own relatively poor understanding of the group, but also as a result of the quality of the illustrations themselves. Unlike Linnaeus, we have had access to the original pencil drawings, some of which are also hand-painted, and sketches made by Dillenius for Historia muscorum, now in the library of The Natural History Museum, London. Two features are remarkable. Firstly, quite a number of the printed illustrations have been simplified and altered, in particular the representation of the fruiting structures has suffered (e.g. L. ampullaceus, Fig. 4). Secondly, Dillenius had the bad habit of combining the characters of different specimens to constitute a representative example for his illustration, so that more than one taxon could have formed the basis for his printed illustration (e.g. L. barbatus, Fig. 7 ) . PREVIOUS TYPIFICATIONS The typification of a number of Linnaean lichen names has already been attempted with varying degree of success. I t is not always easy to interpret these early typifications and as the Code is fairly rigorous in defining the grounds upon which typifications can be overruled, it is therefore necessary to outline our criteria for accepting or rejecting such typifications. The earliest typifications of Linnaean lichen names are those by Howe (191015). There have been divided opinions on how these should be interpreted. I n his specific paper on the lichens of the Linnaean herbarium, Howe ( 1912) clearly states that he regarded the specimens that he indicated in heavier print and italics as authentic types, and this appears to fulfil the requirements of Art. 7.11 for effective typification. His species list was the result of careful personal studies, and it is usually possible to identify the specimens which he designated, despite lack of the numbering system introduced subsequently by Savage (1945). In succeeding papers, dealing particularly with the Usneaceae s. 1. (Howe, 19 1314), he also provided photographs of each type specimen and appended annotated, bright red type-labels to the relevant specimens a t LINN. In only a few cases has his selection of type been proved to be incorrect. However, some of his choices are unfortunate due to his lack of knowledge of, and experience with the European lichen flora. They are, nevertheless, formally correct, and it is possible to handle them in a satisfactory way. Many of Howe’s typifications have been taken up by subsequent authors, and the interpretation of these later citations is often much more difficult and dubious than those in the original publication. zyx 268 zyxwvuts zyxwv zyxwv P. M. J0RCENSEN E l AL. zyx zyxw Quite a number of papers record certain specimens simply as ‘type’ or ‘holotype’ when they only are original elements on which lectotypification should have been done. If specifically recorded as the type and the relevant material has been examined (as in Maas Geesteranus, 1947), we regard this as being an effective lectotypification, as specified in Art. 7.1 1 and 9.8 of the Code. However, if there is reference only to ‘type in herbarium. . .’, lacking specific reference to an examined specimen, we do not regard this as an effective typification, as is the case in Howe’s earliest papers (1910a, b, 1911). A particular problem found even in modern well-researched works, is that designation of a lectotype is often indicated only by citation of the number of the sheet in the Linnaean herbarium. However, this is not always sufficient as more than one taxon may be present on the sheet (e.g. L. venosus). Also, in cases where the specimens on one sheet belong in one taxon, as presently defined, typification should preferably be done on a single specimen rather than on the sheet. There is often both morphological and chemical variation in the material on the sheet, and there is no proof that the specimens were collected in the same locality. We have therefore lectotypified names based on sheets with many specimens of the same taxon on single specimens. As discussed above, typification on actual specimens in the Dillenian herbarium is incorrect, and unpublished typifications are, of course, not effective. METHODS We have carefully studied all sources that might assist in making the best and correct choice of types. These include all relevant publications, and in the case of Linnaeus also related manuscripts, letters and annotated personal copies and relevant herbarium specimens as far as these could be traced. All types have been assayed by thin layer chromatography by standard methods (White & James, 1985) and in a few cases by more specialized methods by Prof. J. A. Elix, Canberra. Microscopic examinations have been carried out when necessary. We have found very few cases where a Linnaean species name is represented by a holotype; these are nearly always unique specimens from abroad sent to Linnaeus for identification. We have selected lectotypes for most of the names, but in a number of cases neotypification has been necessary. This has been done in order to secure the current usage of the names as far as possible under the rules of the present Code. The Code, however, has until recently not satisfactorily dealt with old names which have, often for good reason, fallen from use. There are several examples of this problem here where, because of a poor general description and lack of authentic material, we have not been able to decide what species the Linnaean name might represent. We see no valid reason for reviving such names which may threaten long established names which have been in undisputed use for a long period. I n such cases these names have been designated as nomina non satis notae, and will be proposed for rejection according to Art. 56 of the Tokyo Code. Another vexed problem is that of the role of illustrations in typification. Illustrations not showing the necessary detail (see above concerning the Dillenian figures) are considered by us as very poor types, which can often be interpreted in diverse ways. As such illustrations do not stabilize the nomenclature, we regard it as essential that a specimen is designated in addition LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 269 as representing our interpretation of the illustration. We have accordingly selected epitypes in these cases, as defined by Art. 9.7 of the Tokyo Code, unless it has proven necessary to ask for a conserved type. A particular problem occurred in the cases where no original specimens could be located, and typification could only be attempted using illustrations that Linnaeus had misinterpreted. His diagnoses are in those cases often more or less a t variance with those illustrations. We were originally of the opinion that it simply was incorrect to select these as types. However, the Code (Art. 9.9) clearly includes even such illustrations in its concept of original material that should be used before a neotype can be designated. If previous lectotypifications have been made on such illustrations, they cannot be superseded as the Code (Art. 9.13) demands the impossible: it must be shown that the lectotype is in serious conflict with the protologue. As all illustrations cited by the original author are part of the protologue as defined by the Code, it is never possible to supersede a previous, technically correct lectotypification. It has been found necessary, in a separate paper (Jorgensen et al., in press), to make proposals for conservation or rejection of 28 names in order to maintain their current usage. Some of these could possibly have been saved by bending the rules somewhat, for example by trying to prove that a specific, cited illustration could not have been used by Linnaeus when writing the diagnosis, although it is cited in the protologue. A risk with this approach is that decisions based on such arguments may be challenged by other nomenclaturalists, thus creating more problems instead of providing the intended nomenclatural stability. We therefore prefer the extra effort of a formal conservation proposal to be considered by the Nomenclature Committee, now that it is possible to reject or conserve even specific names. In those cases where flawed statements concerning typification have been published, we have nevertheless tried to retain these specimens as types whenever possible, to avoid upsetting nomenclatural stability unnecessarily. Otherwise we have designated ample, typical specimens from Sweden, often represented in exsiccates and from localities close to those known to have been visited by Linnaeus. I n a few cases we have selected specimens of historical interest in LINN, because of their particular relevance. As a standard reference to the current concept of the treated species we refer to the recently published British lichen flora (Purvis et al., 1992). In cases where we either disagree with the species concept there, or the species in question are not found in the region covered by this flora, references are made to other relevant works. In a few cases of critical or previously poorly understood taxa, we provide the discriminating data, reflecting our concept of the species. We have illustrated all the Linnaean type specimens. As a photograph of the whole sheet normally is not sufficiently detailed to allow identification of the lichen, and also most of the sheet is empty, we have in many cases chosen to present a n enlarged close-up of the type specimen, adding beneath the important Linnaean annotations from the lower part of the sheet. zy zyxwv zyxw TYPIFICATIONS All names are treated in alphabetical order, based on the original protologue which is reprinted in full and discussed. All potential syntypes and problems 270 zyxwvu zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqpo zy zyx zyxwvut zyxwv zyxwvut P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. relating to them are fully discussed in order to make a sound designation of types. Finally the identity of the selected type specimen is indicated. 1. Byssus botryoides L., Species plantarum 2: 1169 (1 753). 10.BYSSUS pulverutenti viridis. bmyoida. Byillis botryotdcs faturate vire:?s. Raj. mgl. 3. p . f . 6 . Dill. mtjljc. 3. t . I . f. y. Habitat ia terra diutius Irui.i:ic!cr, umbrolj, ut in rllir Hwtzi/marzfm. zyx Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Dillenius ( 1742: 3), but had evidently seen specimens himself on soil in a gardener’s flowerpot which he, most probably incorrectly, referred to this species. The single specimen in his herbarium (LINN 1278.16) is annotated only by F. Ehrhart and is not original material. Drouet & Daily (1956: 145) incorrectly regarded this as “the type”. However, Redhead and Kuyper (1987: 321) correctly designated the cited illustration in Dillenius (1742) as lectotype with the equivalent specimen in his herbarium (OXF) as typotype, based on information supplied by J. Laundon. Laundon later (1992) repeated this typification, adding that better developed duplicate material exists in Herb. Sherard (sheet 1995, O X F ) . This in our opinion represents the main part of the collection, on which the account of Ray (1724), written by Dillenius, is based, and we select this as epitype for the Dillenian illustration. These collections are, according to the studies of Redhead & Kuyper (1987)) the sterile lichenized thalli of the basidiomycete we prefer to call Omphalina umbellzfera (L.: Fr.) QuClet (see Jmgensen & Ryman, 1989, 1994)) but note that Agaricus umbellzferus L. as typified by Redhead & Kuyper (1987) is a nonlichenized species of the genus Mycena. zyxwv 2.Byssus candelaris L., Species plantarum 2: 1 169 ( 1753). Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Dillenius (1 742: 3 ) ) also including observations he made on his travels to Oland and in Vastergotland ( 1745, 1747). There are no relevant specimens in LINN, sheets 1278.12-15 being unannotated by Linnaeus, and Ross & Irvine (1967: 185) correctly designated the cited Dillenian illustration as lectotype. We agree, however, with Laundon (1981: 1 lo), that the specimens in the Dillenian herbarium do not correspond with the illustration. Laundon therefore appointed a “neotypotype” to represent the interpretation of the Dillenian illustration. This specimen is here selected as epitype of that illustration. The material represents Chrysothrix candelaris (L.) Laund. zyxwvut zyxw zyxwvuts zyxwvutsr zyxwvutsrq zyxw zyxwvu LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 271 3. Byssus incanus L., Speciesplantarum 2: 1169 (1753). Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Dillenius ( 1 742: 3), also citing this via his own Flora suecica ( 1745). There are no relevant specimens in LINN, 1278.17 being only annotated by Ehrhart, and the name was incorrectly typified by Laundon (1963: 67) on a Dillenian specimen. However, he later corrected this (Laundon, 1992: 333) choosing the illustration as lectotype with the corresponding specimen in the Dillenian herbarium as typotype. This latter is here selected as epitype of the Dillenian illustration. The material represents Lepraria incana (L.) Ach., the generitype of Lepraria Ach. 4 . Byssus Lacteus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 169 ( 1 753). BYSS U S pulverulento-cruhcca slbifiim3. Byifus candidiiilrnu, calcis ii;itar rnu:'cos vcltiens. Diil. muk. L. t . I . j : 2 . HdztJt iw Mufcis nrborrrrr corticibu~. I 2. ld,TOP* Linnaeus provided his own diagnostic phrase-name, also citing Dillenius ( 1 742). There are no relevant specimens in LINN, and the typification by Drouet & Daily (1956: 145), based on sheet 1278.19, is incorrect as this specimen is annotated only by Linnaeus filius, as already indicated by Ross & Irvine (1967: 186). The Dillenian illustration is not easy to interpret (Fig. 3 ) and the corresponding material in the Dillenian herbarium does not agree with this illustration. As was noted by Laundon (1992: 343), this material represents two different species of Ochrolechia, one fertile with apothecia, the other with welldelimited soralia, neither of these structures being apparent in the Dillenian illustration. As the Linnaean description is very generalized and the illustration on which it is founded difficult to interpret, perhaps based on a now lost specimen, it is impossible to determine how the name should be applied. It has also not been in Figure 3. T h e Dillenian illustrations of species in the genus Byssus, none of which are identifiable. Nevertheless Figure 2 is cited by Linnaeus as being identical with his Bjssus lacteus. 272 zyxwvut zyxwv zyxwvutsrqpo zyxw zyx zyxwvu P. M. J 0 R G E N S E N E l AL. use for a considerable time, and we regard it as a species non satis nota which will be proposed for rejection. Note that Lichen lacteus L. is a different name (see p. 326). 5. Lichen ampullaceus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 146 ( 1753) I 4=prlln8wt zyxwvutsrqpon 34. LICHEN foliaccus plaiiiulculur lobatus creiiatus, peltis globolis iiiflntis. Lichcii Coliis IJciiiintis , n i q i n i b u s convulutir iu vcficu’aiil ah.untibds. ;to). Lichut:oidcs ig.tb t i l l ~ ~ ~ J r l l l lglaoruiii l mtt/;. itis. t . 24. f. 82. f ‘j. vcficulofum. Diil. Ihhitat irr Laiicaltria 121r~l;z. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name, mainly based on Dillenius (1742), but he also cited van Royen (1740). Obviously Linnaeus had no material of his own and it is quite surprising that he should have included this taxon rather than one of the many more important lichens known at that time. We suspect this was because of the unusual appearance of the species. Unfortunately there is no specimen, only an inserted drawing, in the Dillenian herbarium, and Maas Geesteranus, former curator of the lichen collection at Leiden, has informed us that he has not located any of the lichens referred to by van Royen there. (The identity of the Dillenian illustration has been in doubt for a long time, though as recorded by Culberson & Culberson (1968: 534), the name has often been interpreted “to refer to monstrous forms of Platismatia glauca infected by parasitic fungi. . .”. These authors therefore reject it as a monstrosity, a possibility allowed by the Code (Art. 71) a t that time, but now no longer permissible. The printed drawing (see Fig. 4b) does show a fruitbody zyxwvutsrqp Figure 4. Lichen ampullaceus L., a, Hoffmann’s drawing of the original material. b, Dillenius, Table XXIV, fig, 82, the printed version. c, T h e original Dillenian drawing. Note the marked difference between the two versions b and c. zy zyxwvutsr zyxw zyx zyxwvutsrq zyxwvu zyxwvut zyx zyxwvuts LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 273 representing a perithecium, but in the original sketches by Dillenius (Fig. 4c), which Linnaeus did not see, no apical pore can be observed. There are also indications, both in the illustration and in the text, that the host lichen is only doubtfully P. glauca. The size of the thallus, as compared with the ‘fruits’, is out of proportion and the description indicates a saxicolous species which is brownish above, occurring in mountain pastures, an unusual habitat for P. glauca. Quite unexpectedly the solution to this problem was found in Hoffmann (1789),who presents another, much better drawing in colour (Table XII, 2; see Fig. 4b) made from the specimen sent to Jacquin by Dillenius (and obviously never returned). This clearly shows a young apothecium of Parmelia omphalodes in the stage of opening. We therefore regard Lichen ampullaceus as a synonym of Lichen omphaiodes, and have selected an epitype for the Dillenian illustration accordingly. 6. Lichen aphtosus L., Species plantarum 2: 1148 (1753). ntbtafii. 46. LICI IEN foliaceus repens lobatus oktufiis plaiins, VCI rucis +a:.lis , pelta m q i i i a l i adfcendciitc. l-l./ircc. 363. M.rt. flied. 422. nmwta, m a d . 2 . p . 67. Lichencktcs digitaturir Iztc vireiis, verrucis nigris notat u i n . DjII. W X / ~ .2 0 7 . t . 28. f. 106. l l n b r t n t i n Europa: Sylvrs acrroJr Jerilibms Jnb jrtniPCrlJ. 8er.rejfris. Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name unchanged from Flora suecica (1745), and also cited two other of his own works, as well as that of Dillenius ( 1742). There are four sheets in LINN bearing this name, two of which (1273.175 and .176) are annotated by Linnaeus himself. The former bears both the Flora suecica (963) and the Species plantarum (46) numbers, and is the obvious choice as lectotype (Fig. 5), as correctly designated by Howe (1912: 201). The specimen represents Peltigera aphthosa (L.) Willd., and belongs to the most frequently occurring chemotype in northern Europe (see Tmsberg & Holtan-Hartwig, 1983, who also define the taxa of this group). It should be noted that Linnaeus in the original Species plantarum manuscript (see p. 274) first spelled the epithet with two ‘h’, as is usual today, but he obviously corrected it to a single one in the final version. The transcription of the Greek letter 6’ is now standardized to ‘th’, and the presently used form is allowed as a corrected spelling (Art. 60). 7. Lichen aquaticus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 148 ( 1753). 274 zyxwvuts zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RCENSEN E T AL. zyxwvuts zyx Figure 5. The lectotype of Lichen uphtosus L., LINN 1273.175. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this species, but he included, adding a question mark, a reference to Dillenius ( 1742). There is no relevant material in LINN and the Dillenian illustration, which represents Parmotrema perjioratum Uacq.) Hale from eastern North America, would be a most unfortunate choice of lectotype. I n any case the description does not match this species in any way, differing notably in the absence of hemispherical fruitbodies and in not growing submerged on rocks, but on branches of trees! This is clearly an error by Linnaeus, and he obviously had doubts about this element as indicated by his addition of the question mark. I t cannot therefore be regarded as original material. There is also no Swedish lichen which combines this special ecology with the described morphology, particularly regarding the apothecia. I n fact L. aquaticus has puzzled lichenologists since it was described and Acharius (1799: 164) noted that neither he, nor any other botanist, had been able to re-find this species in the locus classicus at Uppsala. Zahlbruckner (1931: 780) lists it among the uncertain names in his Catalogus, and we would have treated it in this way, had we not had access to the original manuscript (see p. 401). Here Linnaeus originally placed L. aquaticus with the Umbilicaria species, with the description “Lichen foliaceus repens sinuatus obtusus planiusculus, peltis hemisphaericus”. More importantly he cites, without any question mark, Dill. musc. 224, t. 30, f. 128. The diagnosis, the habitat and the reference clearly show that he originally must have had the lichen now called Dermatocarpon luridum (With.) Laund. (syn. D. aquaticum Zahlbr.) in mind. This certainly explains the habitat information in LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 275 Species plantarum. The printed protologue there is an emendation of the original one in the manuscript. Obviously Linnaeus obtained more material from the cited bog in Uppsala, which he probably mistakenly interpreted as a more mature stage of his new species, causing him to transfer it to the end of the Coriacei after L. resupinatus (see p. 398). The description of very elevated hemispherical fruitbodies, with thalline parts even on the disc, is hard to match with any known lichen and this element remains a mystery. We accordingly conclude by designating as neotype the only identifiable element associated with the name, viz. Dermatocarpon luridum. T h e transfer of the Linnaean epithet to Dermatocarpon is blocked by the already existing name Dermatocarpon aquaticum Zahlbr. (see Laundon, 1984b: 222). zyx 8. Lichen arcticus L., Species plantarum 2: 1148 (1753). zyx Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica ( 1745), adding the single word laeuis, also citing his Flora lapponica ( 1 737). There are five sheets in LINN inscribed with this name, all annotated by Linnaeus. Of these Howe (1912: 201) correctly designated 1273.183 as (lecto)type, a specimen with both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (47, 962). Later James & White (1987: 223) designated 1273.180 as lectotype, a specimen with the Species plantarum number (47), also marked 'Lapp'. Both these collections represent Nephroma arcticum (L.) T o r s . , but Howe's typification has priority and we regard the lower specimen associated with the Flora suecica number (Fig. 6 ) to be the lectotype. It is the generitype of Nephroma Ach. 9. Lichen articulatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1156 ( 1753). This is one of the non-Scandinavian species which Linnaeus had not seen in the field. He took the diagnostic phrase-name unchanged from van Royen (1740) and added four more synonyms (see above). 276 zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqp P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. zyxwvutsr Figure 6. T h e lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen arcticus L., LINN 1273.183 (that number written by Savage). Lowermost numbers written by Linnaeus. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 277 There are no relevant specimens in LINN, no van Royen material has been traced in Leiden, nor has any connected with the other cited works been found, except in the case of Dillenius. Howe (1910a, b; 1914b) makes only general comments, noting the absence of relevant material at LINN, and referring to Crombie (1880) for the identity of the Dillenian specimens. This cannot be regarded as effective lectotypification. A specimen cited by Dillenius (1 742) in Herb. Sherard ( O X F ) has incorrectly been designated as lectotype by Swinscow & Krog (1976: 261). However, we here modify their choice by selecting the Dillenian illustration as lectotype with the Sherard specimen as its epitype. This represents Usnea articutata (L.) Hoffm. zy zy zyxwvuts zyxw zyxw zyx zyxwvu zyxwvuts zyxw 10. Lichen atro-albus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 141 ( 1 753). 8. LICHEN leprofus niger ,tuberculis albis. lfabitat in Alpium rripibxs. nrro-nlk Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, and cited no synonyms. This is a crustose, saxicolous lichen, which is not represented in LINN. As a result of this, and the vague protologue, the name has been very poorly understood. Acharius (1799) attempted to use the name for a taxon in the Rhisocarpon badioatrum (Florke ex Sprengel) Th. Fr. group, but its identity remained uncertain and it fell from use during the last century. The description is very generalized and could be applicable to several alpine crusts. It is therefore a species non satis nota and the name will be proposed for rejection. 11. Lichen atro-virens L., Species plantarum 2: 1141 (1753). 7. LlCHEN lcprofus ater, tubcrculis viridibus confertir FI, s+ 9a9tlabrtrt rn kuropa tnpilus. .itrc-:.itO.rt. fubcrrulrl parva, $mu-vircfic>Aa, conferts, st tc:a ar e a flavo-virt’m conlrpiciatur, p a m cingit margo ni- gcr. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unchanged from Flora suecica (1745), and cited no synonyms. There are no specimens in LINN of this saxicolous crust. T h e name has been applied to taxa in the very difficult and variable Rhizocarpon geographicum (L.) complex, but since the description is generalized and undiagnostic, it could refer to any member of this group. Runemark (1956: 90) proposed that the name should be regarded as a nomen ambiguum, and it is not in current use. Without material there is no way of deciding which particular entity is involved, and it is therefore best regarded as a species non satis nota. The name will be proposed for rejection. 278 zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqp P. M. J0RGENSEN E'T AL. zyxwv Figure 7. The Dillenian table XII, fig. 6 (with fig. 5) believed by Linnaeus to represent his Lic:hen barbatus. T o the right, the original drawing, not seen by Linnaeus, clearly showing the non-articul.ate specimen at left on Dillenius' herbarium sheet (Fig. 8). LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 279 zyx zy zyxwvuts Figure 8. l’he specimens in the Dillenian herbarium corresponding to Table XI1 fig. 6. The left-hand and central specimens both represent Usnea orliculata, one indicated as being collected by Mr Cole (in England). The right-hand specimen (at arrow), belongs in the lJ.filzpendula complex and was possibly collccted in Pennsylvania. zyxwvut zyxwvuts zyxwvu zyxwv zyxw zyxw zyxw zyxwvut P. hi.JORGENSEN E T AL. 280 12. Lichen barbatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 155 ( 1753). 72. LICHEN filamenafus pendulus fuharticulatus , ra- brrbrtw. mis patenribus. Fl. f w c . 93f. Lichen caule tercri coriaceo ,ramulis tenuifirnis cinereis, KO?. l q d b . p 3 . Ufnea barbata, loris trnuibus fibrofis. Dill. mtal;. 63. t . 1 2 . J 6. Mufcus cnpillaceus longi6mur B a x h . pin. 361. H u b i t a t in Europz ij Americle~ptm~rionalir/Lluis fagct1r. Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica (1 745), but changed the word patentissimus to patentibus. He also cited three other botanists’ works (see above). There is a specimen at LINN, 1273.276, which is annotated by Linnaeus with the Species plantarum number and name, and Howe (1912: 201; 1914: 376) regarded this as the type. The specimen represents Usnea articulata (L.) Hoffm. However, the specimen is inscribed ‘Kh’, which indicates that it came from MArten Kohler, whose list of specimens is dated 1757 (see Savage, 1945: 199). The name could therefore not have been based on this material. No other specimens linked to the cited works have been traced, except for the Dillenian illustration. This is a case of a composite illustration derived from more than one specimen (see p. 267). Dillenius ‘improved’ the original drawing (Fig. 7) by involving other specimens, those of Usnea articulata, so the lectotype illustration includes features of two different elements. It is, however, quite clear that Linnaeus had in mind an element similar to that originally drawn by Dillenius, the phrase-name being taken from Flora suecica, a region where U. articulata, as also recognized by Linnaeus, does not occur. The right-hand specimen (Fig. 8) is therefore the one which matches Linnaeus’ interpretation closest. This appears to be a taxon in the U.jl$endula Stirt. complex, but with a chemistry (barbatic and salazinic acids) unknown in the group in the British Isles and Scandinavia. We prefer to select an epitype for this ambiguous lectotype illustration as it was interpreted by Linnaeus and in conformity with the present use of the name, which dates back to Motyka (1937: 209), for a taxon in the poorly understood U .Jlipendula group present in Scandinavia. It should be noted that this species, as presently understood, does not contain barbatic acid. When this acid was described by Stenhouse & Groves (1880), the specimens from which it was extracted were named U. barbata (L.) Weber by M r Carruthers of the British Museum and Sir Joseph Hooker at Kew, but as this species does not occur in Great Britain, they clearly misidentified the material. No specimens have been preserved, but as they were collected in Scotland (Roxburghshire and Durris in Kincardineshire according to Stenhouse & Groves, 1880: 286), it must have been U. wasmuthii Ras., the only Usnea containing barbatic (with salazinic) acid occurring commonly there. Also, the material used by Robertson & Stephenson (1932), when they determined the structure of barbatic acid, originated from Scotland (one kilogram from Aberdeenshire and Elgin) and must have belonged to this species. zyxwvu zy zyx zyxwvuts zyxw LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 28 1 13. Lichen Burgessii L., Systema naturae ed. 13: 807 (1774). Burgeljii. L. foliaieus fubimbricatus crifpus , peltis elevatis muricato -cri@ipis fundo depreKo plano. Lichen folieceus eretliufculus pellucidus crifpus ,fcutellis planis nitidis margine crifpo, Burge//. m*J J. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen. He based it, however, on the phrase-name used by Burgess in an accompanying letter dated 20 May 1771 (Fig. 9). There is a specimen in LINN (1273.91), first inscribed crispus, but altered to Burgessii. Although not annotated by Linnaeus, but by Linnaeus filius (see above p. 264), it is clearly the material sent by Burgess from Scotland, as on the back of the sheet there is a phrase-name, similar to Burgess’ original. We designate the left-hand specimen as lectotype (Fig. 10). The specimen represents Leptogium burgessii (L.) Mont. zyxw zyxwvut zyxwv zyxwv 14. Lichen Byssoides L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissa plantarum: 133 (1767). - , J3p@idct.go. LICHEN lcprofo fkrinimr peltis Ripitatis fubgloboiis, Coralloides fungiforme ex ungulo tquinr, livide rubefcens. Dill. mule. 78. t . 14. f. f . Fungi parvi globofi .ex nnguc cquino putrefccnte. Raj. an,$. 3. 9. 13. t . f . Habitat in Europa Rlarrojh. CrnJa Firinufi, viridi cincrra. F~wg;pro ration8 rarhgwi. - Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, also interpreting the illustrations of Ray (1724) and Dillenius ( 1742) as belonging here. There are no relevant specimens in LINN; 1273.2 carries only annotations by Ehrhart. The illustrations cited are in serious conflict with the Linnaean diagnosis and description (but not the protologue, see above p. 269). This is a case where Linnaeus clearly misinterpreted the illustrations, both of which represent a non-lichenized fungus, Onygena equina (Willd.: Fr.) Pers.: Fr., a specialized species mainly growing on the hooves of dead horses. It is hard to comprehend how Linnaeus could have overlooked this remarkable fact in the text and it strongly suggests that he consulted the illustrations only. T h e Linnaean concept is clearly that of a lichen on gravel. We will propose the name to be conserved with a specimen which is in accord with the Linnaean diagnosis and its subsequent use, LINN 1273.2, a specimen annotated by Linnaeus’ pupil Ehrhart. It represents Baeomyces rufus (Huds.) Rebent. Lichen byssoides is the generitype of Baeomyces Pers. 282 zyxwvut zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J 0 R G E N S E N E T A L Figure 9. From Burgess’ letter to Linnaeus with his description of the lichen later called Lichen burgessii by Linnaeus, and Burgess’ signature, address and date of letter. zyxwvutsrq Figure 10. The lectotype of Lichen burgesszi L., LINN 1273.91, left-hand specimen (of three). Epithets written by Linnaeus filius. zyxwvu zy zyxwvuts zyxw zyxwv zyxwv zyxw LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 283 15. Lichen calcareus L., Species plantarum 2: 1140 (1 753). rrleaitwt; 6. LICHEN IrpIofiis candidus, tubereulis atris. F1.f.t~. 937. I t . w:gork. zy. z t I . i t . , t o t / . 183. Lickenoidcs tartarcum tiiiCtoriom caudidum, tuberculis atris. LJrli.muji. 128. 18. f; 8. Halitat in Europz rnpiCus marmorcir. :. Linnaeus’ phrase-name for this lichen is taken verbatim from Flora suecica (1 745). H e also cited treatments from two of his travels (see above). He further regarded Dillenius’ illustration as representing the same taxon. There is no material in LINN. The only original material is accordingly the Dillenian illustration which Linnaeus obviously misinterpreted. I n this case it is more understandable that he was misled as the illustration bears some resemblance to Linnaeus’ concept of his species. However, from the text in Dillenius’ work it is quite clear that a very different species is intended, which is not associated with calcareous rocks and marble. The species illustrated by Dillenius appears to be one which is now mostly in a disintegrated state in his herbarium and represents Mycoblastus afinis (Schaer.) Schauer, a species of acidic bark, soil and debris. The other element of this collection, which is not in accord with the illustration, represents sterile, isidiate Pertusaria pseudocorallina (Liljeblad) Arnold, certainly responsible for the English phrase-name quoted by Dillenius as “The white tartareous Scarlet-dying Lichenoides”. T o secure continued use of the name in the traditional and Linnaean sense, we will propose the name for conservation with a new type from Gotland where Linnaeus first saw this species, and where he reported that it covered the calcareous rocks, making it difficult to read the runic inscriptions thereon (Linnaeus, 1743: 183). The material proposed as a conserved type represents Asficilia calcarea (L.) Korb. 16. Lichen calicaris L., Species plantarum 2: 1 146 ( 1 753). Linnaeus’ phrase-name for this lichen was taken unchanged from Flora suecica (1745), and he added references from three further works (see above). There are two relevant sheets in LINN, both with Species plantarum (36) and Flora suecica (956) numbers in Linnaeus’ handwriting. Howe (1913: 83) typified the name on sheet 1273.1 15 (Fig. 11). This typification has been challenged by Krog & James (1977: 25) mainly on account of the unfortunate nomenclatural 284 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqpo P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. zyxwvutsrqp Figure 1 I . The lectotype of Lichen calicaris L., LINN 1273.1 15, with Howe’s typification label; the lichen currently known as Ramalina siliquosa. Numbers written by Linnaeus, but the epithet was added by his son. consequences of Howe’s choice. As stated above (p. 267) we have, by reexamining Howe’s typifications, come to the conclusion that this is one of his lectotypifications which is formally correct according to the Code. The specimen is certainly one Linnaeus had available when writing Species plantarum, and it is not in conflict with the protologue as Linnaeus included both saxicolous and corticolous material. Quite clearly his name embraces both the saxicolous species, which is now called Ramalina siliquosa (Huds.) A.L. Sm., as well as the corticolous species which has always been known as Ramalina calicaris (L.) Fr. It was most unfortunate that Howe designated 1273.1 15 as type, but not incorrect. The lectotype represents the saxicolous species R. siliquosa. I n order to prevent zyxwv zyxwv zyx zyxw zyxw zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwv zyxw LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 285 a most undesirable name-change, we will separately propose conservation of the name with the same type as that designated by Krog &James (1977). 17. Lichen candelarius L., Species plantarurn 2: 1141 ( 1753). I;. * Lepvofi .fiufcllnti. LICHEN crufl~ceusflivuy, fcutcllis luteit. Bvff11s farinacea 1!3V3. It. el. 30.It. w:gotb. r f9. mLl:nfm‘ itl Europx paritfibus, m;iris, trnrrcir nrbornm, prs/crti:n Qacrcus. Hdbitnt Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, as well as citing his own phrase-names from two travel accounts (see above). There are no relevant specimens in LINN, and an appropriate neotype from Oland has been selected by Santesson (in Moberg, 1986: 10). I t represents Xanthoria candelaria (L.) Th. Fr., the lichen which traditionally has been used for colouring tallow candles to simulate the yellowed appearance of wax candles, hence the specific epithet chosen by Linnaeus. Note that Byssus candelaris L. is a separate name for a different species (see above, p. 270) which Linnaeus introduced in Species plantarurn for a sterile, sorediate species used for a similar purpose. I n Oland and Gotland, Xanthoria candelaria is quite often fertile, as was observed by Linnaeus. 18. Lichen caninus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 149 ( 1 753). 48. LICHEN foliaccus rcpens lobatus obrufiis p l a ~ u ms i‘ubtus venofiis villofus, peltr marginali adfcendente. Fi./ k c . 961. A%t. mrd. 431. Lichen foliis pianis ihbrvtundis !ob;itis obtufis celyce piano lacitiia propria 3d113to. FI. Iayp. 441. Koy./ugrib. f03. h s . zyxwvu zyxw Lichcn pulmonarius faxatilis digitatus. Vuill. purij: I 16. t. 2 1 . f. 16. Lichenoidcs 4lgitatum cinercum, lac?ucz foliis linuoIis. Dlil. W I U ~ C . ZOO. t. 27. 1: 1 0 2 . M u h - b ‘ u n g u s tcrreiiris Iatit‘oiius cinereus, hepatic2 tacie. J Z o r i j ; hqt. 3. F. 6 3 2 . /. 1 f . t . 7 . f. I . H u b h t in EUKOPZ j y f t i i , j w x t a L i p i d c ~ , ;terra. ~ ~ tcrrcjh-ir. Linnaeus’s diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen was taken unchanged from Flora suecica (1745), also cited via Materia medica (1749). He also cites a further four synonyms, one of his own, and three from other sources (see above). There are three sheets in LINN inscribed “Lichen caninus”, but only two of these have the Species plantarum number (48) added. The sheet 1273.186 was evidently added after 1753, since it also bears the number 44 from Systema naturae ed. 10 (1759), possibly the year this specimen was added to the herbarium. Sheet 1273.184 bears, in addition to name and Species plantarum number in Linnaeus’ own handwriting, the letter ‘M’, indicating that the material came from Magnol (Fig. 12) and was therefore present before 1753. This specimen is in accord with the protologue but referable, as annotated by Vitikainen, to an unusual, non- zyxwvuts zyxwvut zyxwvu 286 P. M. JBRGENSEN E T AL. zyxwvuts Figure 12. The lectotype of Lichen cunintu, LINN 1273.184, an unusual form of the lichen currently known as Peltigeru pruetextutu. Note the little 'm' inscribed by Linnaeus just below the specimen, indicating that it came from Magnol in France. The number and epithet are also inscribed by him. schizidiate form of Peltigera praetextata (Florke ex Sommerf.) Zopf. This was correctly designated as (1ecto)type by Howe (1912: 201). T h e cited illustrations all appear to represent Peltigera membranacea (Ach.) Nyl., the specimens in the herbaria of Dillenius and Morison confirming this. Accordingly none of the original material matches Peltigera canina (L.) Willd. as presently understood. This name will therefore separately be proposed for conservation with a conserved type corresponding with its present usage. This is the generitype of Peltigera Willd. zyxwv zyxw zyxwvut zyx 19. Lichen caperatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 147 ( 1 753). 41. LICHEN pallide viridis rugofus Roy. lugdl. 510. Gnezt. zy nizrgirie undulm~s.r f i ~ r m t a ~ . jf,~inp,I . p. 3 1 . Lichenoidcs caperaturn rofacee eipcnliim. Gill. r n ~ , ; . 193. t. 2r. f; 97. rvlul'co -fungus lichenoides , c r u h modo adtiafcens major cinercus. MoriJ hip. 3. p. 633. J 1 5 . 1. f. I . fiditdt ;. in Europa & A%mericaad fixa arLorcs. - * Linnaeus did not know this lichen from Scandinavia, and he took his diagnostic phrase-name unchanged from van Royen ( 1 740). He also cited two further synonyms accompanied by illustrations (see above). LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 287 zy zyx zyxw zyxwvu There is no relevant material in LINN, nor has it been possible to trace any van Royen material a t Leiden. Hale incorrectly (1976: 20) designated an unspecified specimen in the Dillenian herbarium as type. We select the Dillenian illustration as lectotype, with the corresponding specimen 97B in his herbarium (OXF) as epitype. The lectotype represents Flavoparmelia caperata (L.) Hale ( = Parmelia caperata (L.) Ach.), the generitype of Flavoparmelia Hale. 20. Lichen carpineus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 141 ( 1753). II. L k H E N leprofus cinereus, tuberculis albidir rugo- r a r p b r u , fis. Lichen Geo raphicus. I t . f i m . 48. Habitor Z* arpiui truxrir, rrmis. 8 Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, referring to the account of his travels in S k h e ( 1751) where he first discovered the species on Carpinus. There is one sheet in LINN, 1273.18, with the Species plantarum number ( 1 1) and name in Linnaeus’ handwriting, additionally annotated ‘ex carpino’ by him. Most likely this is the collection he made in SkAne, already designated as type by Howe (1912: 201). However, the piece of bark has three different species on it in a composite, map-like mosaic (Fig. 13), the reason Linnaeus (1751) called it Lichen geographicus, a name he later used for a quite different saxicolous species. Two of the species on the bark piece are readily identified as Lecidella elaeochroma (Ach.) M. Choisy and Lecanora chlarotera Nyl., neither of which fits the description satisfactorily, although the latter has some characters in common with it. The third species is the only one with incipient white-pruinose (‘albidis’) apothecia. The apothecia are unfortunately young and the pruina consequently much less developed than in fully mature specimens of Lecanora carpinea (L.) Vain. However, the epihymenium is minutely fine-granular with numerous crystals penetrating downwards to and between the paraphyses (the pulicaris-type of Brodo, 1984: 75) and the thalline margin is packed with small crystals (the campestris-type of Brodo, 1984: 79). This crystal formation is typical of L. carpinea as is also the thallus chemistry. Brodo & Vitikainen (in litt.) have assured us that the apothecia of LINN 1273.18 are representative of an immature state of this lichen. Since Howe (1912) did not distinguish between the three taxa present on the bark-piece, we designate the largest specimen on the bark-piece (see Fig. 13) as lectotype, the one representing Lecanora carpinea (L.) Vain. zyx zyxw 21. Lichen centrtjiugus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 142 ( 1753). ccntrifqut. 18. LICHEN imbIicm~s,foliolis multifidis obfolcte Isvihiis rlbidis cciitrifugir, I‘cutcllis do-fufcis. Fl.[uec. ’)‘I$. Lichen foliis plaiiis miltifidis obtuGs : laciniir liiiearibus, calycibiis coocavir. Fi. lupp. 443. t . 1 1 . f. 2 . Lichciihbticatuin viridaus, fcutcllis badiis. Dill. m&c. 180. t . 24. .f. 7f. I l d i t n c in Europa: frigid* rupibuz. ruprflris. 288 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqpo P. M. J0RCENSEN E T A L zyxwvutsr zyx Figure 13. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen carpineus L., LINN 1273.18. (The specimen is also inscribed ‘ex carpino’, but this is not shown here). All inscriptions by Linnaeus. Linnaeus’ diagnostic phrase-name is taken unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and he also cited his Flora lapponica (1737) where he first described the species, along with a reference to Dillenius erroneously included as a synonym. There are three sheets in LINN of this species, two of which, 1273.58 & .59, carry annotations by Linnaeus. The former carries both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (18, 945), matches the original description well, is an obvious choice as lectotype and has already been designated by Howe (1912: 201). Since there is more than one specimen on the sheet, we restrict this choice to the uppermost one (see Fig. 14). The specimen represents Arctoparmelia centrifuga (L.) Hale ( = Parmelia centrijiuga (L.) Ach.), the generitype of Arctoparmelia Hale. For a description of the species, see Thomson (1984: 475). LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 289 zyxwvutsr zyxwvut Figure 14. ‘Ihe lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen centiifugus L., L I N N 1273.58 (that number written by Savage). Other numbers and epithet written by Linnaeus. ‘I’he three pencil-inscriptions at different levels to the right are all by Sir J. E. Smith. 290 zyxwvuts zyxwvu zyx zyxwv zyxwvutsrqp zyxwv zyx zyxw zyxwvuts zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E l AL. 22. Lichen chalybeifrmis L., Species plantarum 2: 1155 (1753). 76. LICHEN filamentorus rubramofus decumbens pliC3tG-fleXUOfUS. Fl.Jnec. 988. im-chaly~eifr~7mr. Ufnes rigida horfum vorfuni e x t e n k DilL mufi. 66. t . 13. f. 10. Mufcus ciuk rigidb M a r fili chalybei. Raj. azgLc, 3. P. (9Habitat in Europa f a p a rupcr L*fep’tmcntr. Figure 15. T he lectotype of Lichen chulybeifrmis L., LINN 1273.290, the lichen currently known as Bvoriufuscescem. T h e epithet is in the handwriting of Linnaeus filius, but the number was written by Linnaeus. zyx zyxw zyx LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 29 1 Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1 745) where he had first described this species. He also cited two synonyms from works by British botanists (see above). There are three sheets bearing this name in LINN, two of which, 1273.289 & ,290 carry the Speciesplantarum number (76) inscribed by Linnaeus. Howe (1912: 201) designated a specimen numbered 76 as type, and marked the sheet 1273.290 with a red type-label (Fig. 15). Hawksworth (1971: 123) accepted this specimen as lectotype without discussion. Since there is no Flora suecica number, it is likely that this specimen was not the one on which the phrase-name from 1745 was based. However, Linnaeus almost certainly had this specimen in his possession by 1753 and we therefore accept this specimen as the lectotype. As already pointed out by Krog (1980: 245), it represents Byoria fuscescens (Gyelnik) Brodo & D. Hawksw. In order to avoid a most undesirable namechange, we will separately propose the name be conserved with a new type. zy zyxw zyxwvut zyx zyx 23. Lichen chrysophtalmos L., Mantissa plantarum: 3 1 1 ( 177 1). dry/- pktnlmrs. LICHEN foliaceus fubimbricatur linearis t u s ; pqltis elevatir radiatis fulvis. H&t#t it8 Cap. b. fpCi lacrrus ciliaKonig. mJ. 32. tRpibHJ. Linnaeus provides a new diagnostic phrase-name taken ad verbatim from Koenig’s manuscript (now in the collections at LINN). There are no other references. There is a single relevant specimen in LINN, 1273.89, regarded as the type by Howe (1912: 201). This is one of the rare instances where a Linnaean holotype can be identified, as already suggested by Almborn (1989: 526). The specimen is inscribed ‘32 Koenig’ (Fig. 16), the same number as that used in Koenig’s manuscript and certainly the only element used by Linnaeus for his protologue. T h e specimen represents Teloschistes chrysophthalmus (L.) T h . Fr.; it should be noted that Linnaeus (1774: 807) later latinized the original Greek spelling, a correction allowed by the Code (Art. 60). 24. Lzchen ciliaris L., Species plantarum 2: 1144 ( 1 753). cihuk 28. LICHEN foliaceus erediufcuIus : laciniis linearibus cilintls, Ccutellis pcdrlriculatis crenatis.. F1.f e e t . 9f2. Lichcii foliis lacit~iatiscilicrcis: laciiliis liiiearibus apice .pilolis. R o y . Irtgdb. fog., Liclicii cinereus xi borcus, marginibus pilolis, major. Vfiill.pnr+ 1 I r. t . to.f. 4. Liclwnoillcs liilbiduin iria~us& rigiditls ,.fcutellis nigris. UiN. mnJi. 150. Z. 20. f . 45. Mul‘co-fungus arboreus c i ~ ~ e r e nfcutellatur; s marginihus pilofis. MortJ hiJ. 3 . p . 634. J ; i f . t . 7.. 6 6. Mul‘cus arborcus pyxoidcs piiohs. Log;pr#1/. 171 1. zyxw + T** iiabitat in Europz w ~ o r i h s . rrbrreus. Linnaeus’ diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen was first published in Flora suecica, and remains unaltered in Species plantarum. He also cites five synonyms from other sources (see above). 292 zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. zyxwvutsrq Figure 16. The holotype of Lichen chyophtalmos L., LINN 1273.89, with Howe’s typification label. The minute name after 32 reads ‘Koenig’. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. zyxwv zyxw There are two sheets at LINN, but only one of these, 1273.92, is annotated by Linnaeus with both S’eciesplantarurn and Flora suecica numbers (28, 952). It was correctly designated as the (1ecto)type by Howe (1912: 201); we restrict this choice to the uppermost specimen (Fig. 17). James & Rose later (1973: 467) incorrectly indicated an unspecified specimen in the Dillenian herbarium (OXF) as lectotype. The lectotype represents Anaptychia ciliaris (L.) Korb., the generitype of Anaptychia Korb. zyxwvu LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 293 zyxwvuts zyxwvutsrq Figure 17. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen cilial-is L., LINN 1273.92 (that number written by Savage). All other inscriptions by Linnaeus. 294 zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwvu zyxwvu zy P. M. JORGENSEN E T AL. 25. Lichen cinereus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 132; Mantissa plantarum: 132 ( 1767). Linnaeus provided this lichen with a new diagnostic phrase-name. He cited no other works. There are no specimens of this saxicolous, crustose lichen in LINN. Magnusson ( 1939: 128) discussed the typification of this name, and seemingly selected a specimen as (neo)type to be distributed in Malme’s exsiccate. However, he used the term type in an ambiguous way, at least mostly in the sense of ‘taxonomically typical’. Furthermore this collection was not issued in the exsiccate, and the material (now at UPS) is not uniform and distributed in several packets, none of which is marked type. His typification does not meet the requirements of the Code. We have therefore designated a neotype in conformity with the present usage of the name for Aspicilia cinerea (L.) Korb.; the same specimen is the generitype of Aspicilia Massal. zyxw zyxw zyxwvutsrqpo zyxw zyxwv 26. Lichen cocczfrus L., Species plantarum 2: 1151 (1753) ~ 7 LICHEN . fcyphirer lirnpiex integerrimus, ff ipite c l liiidiico, tuberculis cocclneis. bl. j k . 972. AZlct. rq+r*r. mcd 496. Lichru c u l e firnplici , calyce turbinato m q i n c cirnoTo cvinruo proliiero. FI. lapp. 47.9. R o y . lugdb. f12. Lich-n pyxidaitis, or is coccineis & ruInentibus. Y ~ i 1 f . p ~ ri/‘ I 1 j. i. 1.1 f 4. illirh. grrr. 52. t. 4 1 j : 3 . Lichenoides fc) phiforme, tubcrculis coccineis. DiIL mnl;. 82. t. 14. f. 7. H ~ h r trn Europz /Ivlvi~j e t ilibur, t t i c e t i s , ruFilus. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), also cited via Materia medica ( 1 749). H e further cited two of his own works as well as four other sources (see above). There are three sheets in LINN. One, 1273.216, is annotated only by Linnaeus filius, and 1273.2 18 was possibly added later as it is annotated with the number 46 in addition to that of Speciesplantarum (57). Sheet 1273.215, however, has both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (57, 972), and was regarded as a possible lectotype by Ahti & Stenroos (1986: 238), and was formally designated as such by Ahti (1993: 72). However, the sheet contains five specimens of two taxa (C. coccifera and C. pleurota) and we therefore select the top specimen (Fig. 18) as the lectotype. Chemically this specimen is in conformity with Cladonia cocct$era (L.) Willd. S.S. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 295 zyxwvutsr zyxwvuts zyxwvutsrqp Figure 18. The lectotype of Lichen coccz~ee7usL. ( a t arrow), LINN 1273.215. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. 296 zyxwvutsr zyxwvu zyxwvu P. M. J0RCENSEN E T AL. 27. Lichen corallinus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 131; Mantissa plantarum: 131 (1 767). Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen. He cited no synonyms. There are no original specimens in LINN of this saxicolous crust. We have therefore designated a neotype annotated by Ehrhart which is in accord both with the diagnosis and the present use of the name as Pertusaria corallina (L.) Arnold. zyxwv 28. Lichen cornucopioides L. Species plantarum 2: 1 151 ( 1753). Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica, and he also cited his first description of it in Flora lapponica, as well as three other works (see above). There is only one sheet, 1273.217, in LINN which bears both the Species plantarum and the Flora suecica numbers (58, 974). The specimen at first sight does not appear to match the protologue in any way. The specimen is a richly branched morph of Cladonia squamosa Hoffm., and certainly not a species with simple scyphae as described. However, on closer inspection it appears that this specimen has been glued on top of a single podetium of another species of Cladonia which does match the vegetative description of the protologue (Fig. 19). This specimen is a form of Cladonia cornuta (L.) Hoffm. with a narrow cup. Linnaeus describes, however, the apothecia as red (coccineus). This specimen is without fruits and if fertile would have had brown apothecia. The material on which the cited Dillenian figure was based, belongs to Cladonia cervicornis (Ach.) Flotow subsp. verticillata (Hoffm.) Ahti, and this species also has brown apothecia. The figure in Barrelius (1714) is clearly also C. cervicornis subsp. verticillata. Linnaeus undoubtedly included this taxon as an unnamed variety under Lichen pyxidatus L. in Species plantarum, and why he chose to place these synonyms here is unclear to us. I t is particularly noteworthy since in these cases the texts clearly record brown apothecia, in clear contradiction of Linnaeus’ own diagnosis of L. cornucopioides. Lichen cornucopioides is a name which has hardly been in use since Vainio (1887: LINNAEAN L ICH EN NAMES 297 zyxwvuts zyxwv zyxwvutsrq zyxwvutsrqp Figure 19. LINN 1273.217 the only sheet namcd L~chencornucopioideies, mostly Cladonia J'quamosa which may havr hren glued upon the only specimen (at arrow) which is in accordance with the veaetativc dcscription ( = Cladonia cornuta subsp. groenlnndzca) , All inscriptions by Linnacus. 418) proposed abandoning it because of the discrepencies between the material in LINN and the diagnosis. We find it likely that Linnaeus based the description on the sterile specimen 1273.217 and guessed that it should have red fruits, or thought it to be similar to other red-fruited specimens he had seen. We therefore lectotypify it on that element of sheet 1273.217. T h e only specimen is a young podetium of C. cornuta s.l., a very complex species (see Ahti, 1980). It is quite difficult to place this specimen with certainty among the accepted subspecies, but in our opinion it is best referred to subsp. groenlandica (E. Dahl) Ahti. Since this only possible type specimen is of uncertain identity and L. cornucopioides is a potential threat to Cladonia groenlandica (E. Dahl) Trass, when treated on species level, we will propose it for rejection. zyxw zyxwvu zyxwv zyxw zyxwv zyxw 29. Lichen cornutus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 152 ( 1753). WVWW. 63. L I C H E N fc y ph i fcr li mp I i ci u fc ul u s fu b vmtr icofu s, calycibus iiitegtis. F/.J k c c . 976. Lichtii ciule liniplici, Liibulato rarius bifido. Fl. lupp. 434. !<a?. l q d b . I 2 . Coialloidcs y i x I aiiiofhi, fcyphis obfcuris. Dill. m+. 93. I . I f . j : 14 Mufcus filtulofits cornkulatus. Uarr. T U Y . 1286, t . 1 2 7 7 . j ; I . I3orc. mrtJ 2 . 9 . 149. t . 107. I i d i c a t i n l:tliOp3: c r i c c t i s . . 298 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyx P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745). He also cited the publication where he first records it, Flora lapponica (1 737), and four other works as well (see above). There are two sheets in LINN, both with Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (63, 976). Most of the material belongs to Cladonia gracilis (L.) Willd., but the lower specimen on 1273.223 (Fig. 20) is Cladonia cornuta (L.) Hoffm. as currently understood, and Ahti (1993: 73) designated this as lectotype. zyxwvutsrqp Figure 20. The lectotype of Lichen cornutus L. (at arrow), LINN 1273.223. The upper ‘branch’ is a separate specimen of Cladoniafurcala. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. zyxwvu zyxwvuts zyxwv LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 299 30. Lichen cristatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 143 ( 1753) Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen which he did not know from Sweden. He obviously based this on the only publication referred to, that of Dillenius. There are no specimens in LINN. The material in Dillenius' herbarium (OXF) on which his illustration was based, here selected as epitype, represents Collema tenax (Sw.) Ach. Degelius (1954: 308) designated a neotype from Italy which conforms with current use of the name (as C. cristatum (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg.). However, the Dillenian illustration is original material as defined by the Code, and therefore has priority over a neotype. In order to prevent an undesirable name-change, we will separately propose the name be conserved with the type selected by Degelius. 31. Lichen crocatus L.) Mantissa plantarum altera: 3 10 ( 1 7 7 1 ) . Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, which he had evidently received only from one source. This specimen from Koenig is in LINN, sheet 1273.137 (Fig. 21). It was recorded as the type by Howe (1912: 201), and correctly regarded to be the holotype by Galloway & James (1980: 295). The specimen represents Pseudocyphellaria crocata (L.) Vain. zyxw zyxw zyxwvut zyxwvut zyxwvuts 32. Lichen croceus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 149 ( 1753). 49. LICHEN fotiaceus rcFens fu5rotundus plnnus ftib- tus vcnoi'us v i l l o h cruceus, peltis fpirlis adnatir. Fl. juer. 96f. Crocwr. Lichen foliis rubrotundis plinis leviffime incilis , calycibus orbiculatis dil'co h l i i idnitis. J-1. I.zpp. 445. >. 1 1 . f. 3. Roy. I q d b . 7~9. Lichen alpinus viridis fubtus aurintiuj,. fcutis m3gnis nigris piauitIimis. Hall. hclv. 74. Licheiioides i'ubtus croceurfl,. peltis 3pprefis. Dill. rnafi. _ .1 2 1 . t . 30. f. i t o . HJditot i n Lappol;iz, Helvetia, Grccnlanda. trrrrjrir. 300 zyxwvu P. hl. J 0 R G E N S E N ET AL. zyxwvutsrqp zyxwvutsr zyxw zyxwv Figure 21. The holotype of Lichen crocatus L., LINN 1273.137, clearly inscribed ‘Kocnig’ below in Linnaeus’ handwriting, as well as the name. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica (1745), and also included a reference to the first work where he described it, Flora lapponica (1737). He also cited three other works (see above). There are four sheets of this species in LINN, three annotated by Linnaeus. Of these only one, 1273.189, has both Flora suecica and Speciesplantarum numbers (49, 965). The single specimen (in two pieces) on this sheet (Fig. 22) is an obvious choice as lectotype, recorded as the type by Howe (1912: 201), and incorrectly regarded as the holotype by Gilbert (1975: 190). The specimen represents Solorina crocea (L.) Ach. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 30 1 zy zyxwvutsrq zyxwvutsr zyxwvu zyxw zyxwvuts zyxwvu zyxw Figure 22. T he lertotype of I x h e n croccus L., LINN 1273.189. Numbers written by Lintiaeus 33. Lichen cylindricus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 144 ( 1753). tyiirarirn,, 29. LICHEN folisccus ciiistus , pcliis cylindricis reCtis zyxwvuts ip31 [is peifur.?tis tiuncatis : dtlpiici circtllo. ~ r n o c w . scad 2 . p . 264. Lichenoidcs foliorum laciniis crinitis. DiN. rnrgc. 149. 2. 20. .f. 42. HuLitdt in i’cnlyivmis, Lapponiil. D. Atontin. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name from Montin’s dissertation on Splachnum (Linnaeus 1750). He also cited Dillenius (1 742). There are no Swedish (or other) specimens of this taxon in LINN. This is particularly unfortunate since we are convinced that the material concerned must have been that of Umbilicaria cylindrica (L.) Delise ex Duby as currently understood, in spite of the fact that Linnaeus placed his lichen in his group Foliacei. However, from his original manuscript (p. 135) it is clear that he had some doubts about the correctness of this particular placement, and in his personal interleaved copy of Species plantarum, he notes under Lichen proboscideus ‘idem cum cylindric0 29 id. ad earn referenda’ (identical with 29 Lichen proboscideus and to be referred to that species). I n the second edition of this work (1763), he placed the name Lichen cylindricus as a synonym of his L. proboscideus, and therefore the latter name has priority if these two names are considered to represent the same species. This treatment was followed by most subsequent botanists, until Acharius ( 1799: 148), somewhat reluctantly, resurrected zyxwvuts zyxwv zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E l AL. 302 zyxwvutsrqponml Figure 23. Table XX, fig. 42 of Dillenius ( 1 743). The upper left specimen is superficially very similar to Lichen cylindricus sensu Montin, and is certainly responsible for Linnaeus’ mistake in including the illustration under this species. L. cylindricus in the sense we know it (and incorrectly adopted the name L. proboscideus for a different species). Acharius’ view was soon accepted, and his nomenclature has persisted. The cited Dillenian illustration, based on specimens from Pennsylvania, was already included by Linnaeus in Montin’s dissertation. T h e material on which it is based is Parmotrema peforata (Jacq.) Hale. The reason for this mistake is certainly the small sterile specimen in the upper left corner of the Dillenian illustration (Fig. 23), which superficially is very similar to the Acharian concept of Umbilicaria cylindrica. The young apothecia of the lower specimen also resemble those of UmbiEicaria, and Linnaeus may have believed that the similar apothecia on his Swedish specimen would develop to the large perforated apothecia in the other specimens portrayed in the Dillenian illustration. Wei (1993: 4-6) has suggested that L. cylindricus L. should be rejected, but failed to propose this formally, and made an illegitimate nomen nouum for the species sensu Delise (in fact sensu Acharius), Umbilicaria neocylindrica Wei. There are, however, several older names available for U. cylindrica sensu Ach. which would need to be studied and typified before any nomen nouum could be applied. We believe a much better solution is to propose conservation of the name with a new type agreeing with the 200 year long application of the name, so that a most undesirable name change can be avoided. zyxw zyx zyxw zyx zyxwvu 34. Lichen defrmis L., Species plantarum 2: 1 152 (1753). dcforlllir- 64. L1C €1EN fc y ph ifc i finip Iici u fcu 1us fu bv cii t r i m fiis, cdycibus dciit:it:s. ki. j i t e r . 977. Lichcii caul2 liinplici, i y i c e aciito C. cdycc turbiiisto tcrmiiiato. Pi. inpp. 433. t . i t . j : -3. Lichcii p) xoidcs.tcrcs acetihulis ~ii~r)oribiis rcpaiidis, Misk.gcn. 80. t . 4 ) . j : I . C&alloides craiTius fubincanum , calycibtrs dentatis. Dill. mufi. 9 t , ly, f. 18. mala. Habita: in Eur pae rricrtis. c; Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen unaltered from Flora suecica (1745))citing the first work in which he treated it, Flora lapponica (1737), LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 303 zyxwvutsrqp zyxw Figure 24. The lectotype of Lichen defurmrs L., the right-hand vpecimen of Table XI, fig. 5 of Linnaeus' Flora lapponica. as well as two other sources, though adding that the figure in Dillenius was bad (mala). Unfortunately there are no specimens in LINN, and the cited illustrations are all problematical. The illustration in Flora lapponica is difficult to interpret. T h e poor match with the Dillenian illustration, noted by Linnaeus, arises from the fact that the Dillenian specimens represent Cladonia polydact_yla (Florke) Sprengel. The reference to Michelius is also doubtful, this illustration possibly representing a form of C. chlorophaea (Florke ex Sommerf.) Sprengel. We therefore find it best to try to interpret the Linnean illustration in Flora lapponica. I t appears to represent two species, of which the element with narrow cups could be interpreted as a form of C. deformis. We accordingly designate that element of the illustration (Fig. 24) as lectotype with Malme's exsiccate 533 as epitype, the same specimen on which Ahti (1993: 75) neotypified i t . zyxwv zyxw zyxwvuts zyxwvu zyxwv zyxwvu 35. Lichen deustus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 150 ( 1 753). tieujlur. fq. LICHEN foliazeus uinbillicatus uiidiquc 1a:vis. Fi. j i r c c . 970. I t . w:gotth. 21 7. Lichen folio orbiculate pcltato mail;iiic i i i t griiifculo undiquc glabcr. Fi. h p p . 4 ~ 2 ./day. Iugdb. I I I . Lichcri pulinunarius Caxatilis e cinerco ful'cus iiiiiiimus. C'aili rm-;/. 116.t . 2 1 . f. 14. Lichcuoidcs coriaceuin ciiiereuin , peltis atiis comyresfis. C k i l l . p ~ v i / .L I ~ t. LO. f: I I 7. €icr6rtnt in Succiz , Gallia: YupiLusJ cauiilus eftitis apicis. zyxw rupcj.?ris. 304 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqpo P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. zyxwvuts zyx Figure 25. The lectotype of Lichen dezrslus L., LINN 1273.206, the lichen currently known as Umbilicaria proboscidea. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745). He cited his own Flora lapponica ( 1 737), where it first appeared and three other sources (see above). There is one sheet in LINN, 1273.206, with Sfiecies plantarum as well as Flora suecica numbers (54, 970) in the handwriting of Linnaeus, the obvious choice as lectotype (Fig. 25) as recorded by Howe (1912: 201), and repeated by Wei (1993: 12). The type represents Umbilicaria proboscidea sensu Ach. (non L., see above p. 264). Wei (1993: 13) has introduced an illegitimate nomen novum, U. neoproboscidea Wei for it, and has taken up U.JEocculosa Hoffm. for U. deusta auct. ( = sensu Acharius). In order to avoid these undesirable changes of names, we will separately propose the name Lichen deustus to be conserved with a new type to secure the continuity of nearly 200 years use of the name in the Acharian sense. ~ zyxw zyxwvu zyxw zyxwvu 36. Lichen digitatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1152 ( 1 753). d1.5trm'* Gz. LICI-IEN fc) phifcr ramolifimus : ramis cylindricis, cnl ycibus iiitcp is wdolis. Fl. /;(cc. y78. Lichcn cnulc iiiordiii;irc ramofo, ramis in,cnlycv turbiiiatos iiinrgiiic cni iiolbs dclii\cntibus. kl. hpp. 4'36. Coialloidcs I aniulo('um , tubcrculis cocciucis. fJii/. ti;#/?. 96. t . I S . f: 19. Habitat in Europx fylvis jlcriiibus. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zy zyxw 305 Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase name from Flora suecica, but added the word nodosis. H e also cited two synonyms (see above). There are no relevant specimens in LINN. T h e material matching the Dillenian illustration ( O X F ) represents Cladonia Joerkeana (Fr.) Florke. As this illustration was cited in the protologue, it is the only possible lectotype. However, in order to prevent a n undesirable name change, we will propose the name conserved with a new type, the same specimen selected as neotype by Ahti (1993: 75). Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this species, and also cited two other works (see above). There is one relevant sheet in LINN, 1273.277, bearing the specimen sent to him by Schreber, still with the original label attached (Fig. 26). Howe (1912: 201) regarded this as the type. Since there are several specimens on the sheet, we have restricted this choice to the specimen on the extreme right (Fig. 26). The type represent Euernia diuaricata (L.) Ach. For a recent description, see Krog et al. ( 1980). zyxwvuts zyxw zyx zyx zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvu 38. Lichen ericetorum L., Species plantarum 2: 1141 (1 753). 32. LICHEN lcprorus eandidns tubtreulis Incstnads, r d d m r r . FI. fitcc. 936. I t ...;I 54. Licher: cruflnceus , calyce CO~YCIO folk maiorc. FI, zyxwvutsrqponmlkjih {up?. 4rs. Corilloidcs fungiforme e a t n e m , brli Ieptoh. DiIL M f l j C . 76. f . 14. f.,I. Fvngns omniu m minimus turbinntus crocem Bocc. nrrtlr. 2. p. 1 p . t. so. FungiIIi incarnati coloris minuti mufco iaijdentes. iV?rnt2. pwg. c. 6. HRIt i t i l t in E11r~ pfihisJeriliJ mir ,&rr oJssf d g ita;l, n,;gi.&. Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica (1 745), but changed the description of the colour from candidis to incarnatis. He also cited his first publication of the species, in Flora lapponica (1737), and added three other sources (see above). There are five sheets of this species in LINN, of which first Howe (1912: 201) and later Imshaug (1972b: 301) selected 1273.19 as lectotype (Figure 27). This sheet bears both Flora suecica and Species plantarum numbers ( 12, 936). The lectotype represents Icmadophila ericetorum (L.) Zahlbr., the generitype of Icrnadophila Trev. 306 zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. JORGENSEN E T AL. zyx Figure 26. The lectotypr of Lichen dzvaricatu L. (at arrow), L l N N 1273.277 (that number written by Savage), with the original Schrcber label and Howe’s typification label. Epithet written b y Linnaeus. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 307 zyxwvutsrq zyxwvu zyxwvutsrq zyxw zyx zyxwvu zyxwvu zyxwvu Figure 27. The lectotype ofLichen ericetorum L., LINN 1273.19. The name Icmadophila might possibly have been written by Linnaeus filius (certainly not by Swartz as claimed by Savage, 1945: 198).All other inscriptions by Linnaeus. 39. Lichen Fagineus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 141 ( 1753) 10. LICHEN lcprofus albus, tuberculis akbis farinaceis. I f . firm. 59. Europa, PreJiens fldbitat in trmcos Fagi. Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Iter scanicum ( 1751), but modified crustaceus to leprosus, and cited no synonyms. There are no specimens in LINN. As pointed out by Laundon (1963: 143) the name can be and has been applied to several grey, sorediate, corticolous, crustose species because of the generalized nature of the protologue; it could apply to any of these sterile lichens and, consequently, we can only regard this as a species non satis nota and will propose the name for rejection. 40. Lichen fahlunensis L., Species plantarum 2: 1143 (1753). 22. LICHEN imbricatus .- fo1iol;slinexibus dichotomisf~brmnfi. phriul'culis acutis nigris, fcutellis srris. b l . / n r c . I 140. Lichcnoides tiat9orium atrum, ioliis minimis crilpii. Diii. m+. 188. t . 1s. f. 8 1 . Hditd iv Europz rwpibns rrmdir. rwpejfrir. 308 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqp zyx P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and added a reference to Dillenius ( 1742). There are two sheets in LINN inscribed fahlunensis; one (1273.69) is in the hand of Linnaeus filius, a specimen of Cetraria commixta (Nyl.) Th. Fr. T h e other (1273.68) is annotated in Linnaeus’ hand and represents what is presently called Melanelia stygia (L.) Essl. However, this sheet bears no numbers referring to any work and was almost certainly added later than 1753. This specimen is, however, taxonomically identical with that on another sheet (1273.70) annotated ‘22 stygius, 1140’ in Linnaeus’ hand. This is certainly a specimen he possessed in 1753, the numbers referring to the accounts of L. fahlunensis in Flora suecica and Species plantarum respectively (Fig. 28). We are quite convinced that this is a case where Linnaeus first annotated the sheet with the relevant numbers only, and later with a different pen added the wrong species epithet. He obviously had difficulties in distinguishing between these species. The material on sheet 1273.70 closely matches the protologue of Lichen fahlunensis, and we accordingly select it as the lectotype for L. fahlunensis. zyx zyx Figure 28. The lectotype of Lichenfahlunensis L., LINN 1273.70, the lichen currently known as ibfelenelza s&gia as in fact later annotated by Linnaeus, but the numbers which were first applied both refer to L. ,fahlunensis. zy zyxwvu zyxwv zyxw LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 309 The lectotype represents Melanelia stygia (L.) Essl. ( = Parmelia sbgia (L.) Ach.). Unfortunately Schaerer ( 1840) chose the epithet fahlunensis when he united it with L. stygius, and under Art. 11.5 his choice must be followed. It would, however, be very unfortunate to have to reintroduce this epithet for the taxon since fah~unensishas mostly been used for the species currently called Cetraria commixta (Nyl.) T h . Fr. (sometimes also for C. hepaticon (Ach.) Vain. after Acharius ( 1 799) incorrectly transferred the name Lichen fahlunensis to this species). We will therefore propose Lichen fahlunensis for rejection in order to avoid a most undesirable confusion of names. zyxw zyxwvu 41. Lichen farinaceus L., S#ecies plantarum 2: 1 146 (1 753). Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1 745) and also cited three other synonyms (see above). There are two sheets in LINN, one of which, 1273.110, is annotated by Linnaeus with both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (35, 957). This was regarded as the type by Howe (1912: 201). Later, Hawksworth (1969: 255) restricted this choice to the lowest specimen on this sheet (Fig. 29). The lectotype represents Ramalina farinacea (L.) Ach. 42. Lichen fascicularis L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 71 1; Mantissa plantarum: 133 (1 767). Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this species and cited one additional synonym. There are two sheets in LINN, neither annotated by Linnaeus. Howe (1912: 201) and later Degelius (1954: 451) selected 1273.141 as lectotype (Fig. 30). This collection is annotated by Linnaeus filius, who is cited as the collector in the protologue. This specimen was most probably collected by him with Zoega on 310 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvutsr P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. zyxwvut zyxwvuts Figure 29. The lectotype of Lichen furinaceus L., LINN 1273.110, the lowermost specimen on the sheet, with Howe’s typification label. Numbers written by Linnaeus. The epithetfurinactus is in Olof Swartz’s handwriting. Figure 30. The lectotype of Lichenfusciculuris L., LINN 1273.141, annotated by Linnaeus filius. zyxwvuts zyxwvut zyx zyxwv zyxw zyxwvutsrqponmlkji zyx zy zyxwvu LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 311 the excursion near Stenbrohult referred to above, and almost certainly represents the original collecting, although Linnaeus himself has not made any specific annotation. As outlined above, Linnaeus at this time clearly left much of the work on his lichens to his son. The material represents Collema fasciculare (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg. 43. Lichen jimbriatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 152 ( 1 753) fit)t)+fm)* 60. LICl-IEN fcypliifcr liiiiplrx dcnticulntus, ltipite cyliiidrico. FI. Jucc. 973. Lichen caule liniplici , calycc turbinato: margine acuto ptolifcro. FI. Iapp. 430. Lichen pyxidatus minor. Vuill. par;/. I i f . t . 2 1 . f. 6, M k h . ~ t w 83. . 1. 4 1 .f. 4f. Cornlloidcs fc ypliiformc gtaci1e:marginibusfctratis.Di/f. mrq‘c. 8 4 . . r . 14. f. El. Ifaalitnt 2s Europn: jjlvir flcrilibxs. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and cited his first record of it in Flora lnpponica ( 1 737), as well as adding three other references (see above). There is no material in LINN. T h e material on which the Dillenian illustration is based has been located a t OXF, and is the species as understood today. Ahti (1993: 77) designated the Dillenian figure as lectotype, and we select the first specimen of the lower row of Tab. XIV no. 8 in Dillenius’ herbarium as epitype. I t represents Cladonia$mbriata (L.) Fr. 44. Lichenjoridus L., Species plantarum 2: 1156 ( 1 753). forfki. 80. LI CfiEN filarneritofus ramofus ercflm,fcutellis radia- zy t:\. !I. j n c c . 991. Liciieii ciulc rainolii hlido, foliis fctaceis ,reccptaculis i r i a i i i i i i s otbiculatic pcltaris ciliato- radintio. fiett. c l ~ f f . 477. &OY. IJfRdb. f f 3 . U Iiiea vulgntiliiina tciiuior & brevior cum orbicufis. Dill. mulc. 69.t . 1 3 . f i 3. Nluli.ofliiigus PI boruni ca illacciis, kutellis mnplis pix aiiibirurii pilib radialis. ,&or$ h$. 3. p . 635. /. I 5. I\ 7. 1: 14. Miilkus arborciis CIIIII 01 bicylis. B a d . pin. 361. nlukus r . i i i i o ~ i i stiuriduj. ‘Iabcrn. ic. 1308. i t b i t n t i n I;,UIU~LU figctir. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica. He also cited six other works (see above). There are two sheets in LINN, one (1273.300) annotated by Linnaeus with both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (80, 991). Howe (1910a: 3; 1910b: 608) regarded Dillenian material as the type, but failed to typify it effectively on that element. However, he later (Howe 19 12: 20 1 and 19 14: 374) typified it effectively and correctly on the Linnaean sheet, and Clerc (1984: 346) restricted the lectotype to the lowest specimen (Fig. 31). 312 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqpo P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. zyxwvutsr zyxwv zyxw zyx Figure 31. The lectotype of LichenJoridus L., LINN 1273.300, the lowermost specimen on the sheet, with Howe’s typification label. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. The material represents U s n e a j o r i d a (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg., the generitype of Usnea Hill. 45. Lichen fragilis L., Species plantarum 2: 1154 (1753). FWk LICHEN fruticulofus folidus, ramulis teretibus obtufis. fl.j k . 983. Lichen crcttur rainoliflimus. ramulis teretibus nudis fi- 69. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 313 zyxwvut zyxwvuts zyxw zy Figure 32. The Iectotype (at arrow) of Lichen frugilis L., LINN 1273.261 (that number written by Savage). T h e other inscriptions by Liunaeus. Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica for this species, but removed the word nudis. He also cited two synonyms (see above). There are three sheets of this lichen in LINN, only one of which, 1273.261, is annotated by Linnaeus. It has both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (69, 983) and has been designated as lectotype by Howe (1912: 201). Wedin (1993: 216) restricted this choice to the uppermost specimen on this sheet (Fig. 32). The lectotype represents Sphaerophorus fragilis L.) Pen. __ 46. Lichen fraxineus L., Species plantarum 2: 1146 ( 753). 314 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwvuts zyxwvu zyxw zyxw zyx zyxw P Evl. J0RCENSEN E T AL. frmntrcr. folhccus crrCtus obloiigus lanccolatus fublaciiiiatus 13cntivfus g'atxr, Icctchis iubpeduuculatis. Ii. jrrrr. 95s. Lichen fn;iis oblonxis pliiiis rugofis finuatis , calycibus orhicularis petiolaris. &q,iugdb. fog. Lichcii pulmonarius ciuereus indlior in amplas lacinias divifus. ?orrmrJ: inj'f. f49..f. 32r. f: A. B. Lichcnoides longiiolium i ugolum rjgiduni. Dill. mufi. 161. t . 2 2 . f. 59. Murco Fungus qucrnus htifo'oliuscinercds. Mar$ bryt. 3 . p. 6;+J I f . t . 7. :: 14. 3. 4. H h t a t rn Luropz Arborihrrs, pruferrim Faxinis. ar- 37. LIcli EN borers. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and also cited four synonyms (see above). There are five sheets of this lichen in LINN, three of which are annotated by Linnaeus. The obvious choice of lectotype is 1273.121 which has both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers. This was designated as (1ecto)type by Howe (1912: 201), and restricted to the specimen marked B by Krog &James (1977: 33) (Fig. 33). The lectotype represents Ramalina fraxinea (L.) Ach., the generitype of Ramalina Ach. 47. Lichen fuczjiormis L., Species plantarum 2: 1147 (1753). 39. LICHEN foliaccus rcQiufcu1u.s lawis Cubtoinento~sfwCi/pnn". rlrnofiis ,liciiiiis hiicu:!aris. Lichcnoidcs fiiciiGrme tinctoriurn, cornicutis longioribus & ac!itii;rijus. DiX i n q 2 . 165. t. 2 2 . f: 01. FUC!IS ve:ruto!iij tiudorius Kocccila. B a d . pi#. 3 6 ~ . Barb. btJ. j. 2. 7::;. Fucus miriiins , Kocccik tin€torum. B a d . pin. 3 6 ~ . Hdbitut in li!.iia, Caairiis. This lichen does not occur in Sweden, and is not represented in the Linnaean herbarium. Linnaeus' diagnostic phrase-name, which is new, is based on that of Dillenius ( 1742). As there are no specimens in LINN, we select the Dillenian illustration as lectotype with the well-developed material in his herbarium (OXF) as epitype. The lectotype represents Roccella fuciformis (L.) DC. 48. Lichen furfuraceus L., Species plantarum 2: 1146 (1753) J*rfarfice~i.33. LICHEN folia~eusdecumbcns forfuraccus : laciniis aciitis: ~',JIUJF Iacu.ioik attir. PI. f i c c . yy3. Licticn ((riiis laiiis laxis tixcidis iiitquiliter laciniatis: Cuyrv albis Libtus atris. I-!. / q p , 4fo. Lichcii arooicuc Ic~icc~iiiclntiu~ : I aniulic altcra parte nntrrciuis, alicra caiididilliiiii~. U H X P .t m t . z. p . 12. c. 7. f. 1. Lichcttoidcs mriiutum sinaruiii : dcfuper citixetlrn ;in1ei11eiiigruin. D i l l . mxlc. ( $ 7 . t . t i . j . s . ~ , Mulcus a i i i ~ i ~ i ~ , ~ ~ l l i folio. i ) l h i i lid./Jl/t. 3 . p 764. i i a b i t a l i n LUropa: urburr6us. arborrrts. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 315 zyxwvuts zyxw Figure 33. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichenfraxineus L., LINN 1273.121 (part of this number written by Savage, seen at the right), with Howe’s typification label. T h r other inscriptions by Linnaeus. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica (1 745)) also referring to his first account of the species in Flora lapponica (1737). He further cited three synonyms of other botanists (see above). There are two sheets of this lichen in LINN, only one of which is annotated by Linnaeus, 1273.107, a specimen with both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (33, 953). I t is the obvious lectotype and was recorded as the type by Howe (1912: 201). Hawksworth and Chapman (1971: 51) later restricted this choice by typifying the var. furfuraceus on the central specimen containing physodic acid (Fig. 34), a rather unfortunate choice since it does not represent 316 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqp P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. Figure 34. The lectotype (at arrow) OfLichenJurJuraceus L., LINN 1273.107 (that number written by Savage), with Howe’s typification label. T h e other inscriptions by Linnaeus. zy zyxwvu zyxw zyxwvutsrq zyx zyxwvu LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 317 the main chemotype in northern Europe, as d o the four other specimens on the sheet which belong to var. ceratea (Ach.) D. Hawksw. The lectotype represents Pseudevernia furjiuracea (L.) Zopf, the generitype of Pseudevernia Zopf. 49. Lichen fusco-ater L., Species plantarum 2: 1 140 ( 1 753). fihfltfr. y. LICHEN leprofiis fufcus , tubcrculis attis. firlitat ir Europz rnpibws. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen. H e cited no synonyms. There are no specimens of this saxicolous, crustose species in LINN, and a neotype has been designated by Hertel (1977: 244). The neotype represents Lecidea fuscoatra (L.) Ach., the generitype of Lecidea Ach. 50. Lichen gelidus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissa plantarum: 133 (1767). . zyxw pclidus. gr LICHEN crufiaceus Jblcans, peltir tuberculofis rugofis teftacejs Ifabitat irr Islandis laxis. Kinig. Crulta foliacca t a m ar&c /*xi$ crdnatr, , orbicvlaris, , /;parart nrqueat albida , lorrgitndiditet rugoJu. Florum peltz difium eccupa*t , rufi tc/acca , conWt - vex.t, multunr elevate, radiato-plicata , clbr we d o mnrgine. Figura Dill. mnfc. t . 18. f I . a , c. banc expriinit , modo pelta duplo rnajarcr c0nvcx.e tlec marginal# cJe~t, i Linnaeus did not know this species from Sweden and evidently based his description entirely on a specimen sent to him, possibly via Zoega, among the crustose lichens treated in Matztissa, specimens of which are all missing from the Linnaean herbarium. T h e reference to Dillenius ( 1 742) is not a synonym, but a discussion of the difference between his illustration and the material studied by L‘innaeus. There are no specimens in LINN, and we have not been able to trace the Konig specimen elsewhere. Lamb (1947: 202) recorded the type as lost, and gave a detailed description based on another specimen from Iceland “collected probably near the type locality”. Lamb appears to have regarded this as a neotype, b u t as he fails explicitly to say so, we here formally designate his selected specimen as neotype. Lamb incorrectly records the county in Iceland where the specimen was collected as Arnes ( = Arnasysla), instead of Kjosarsysla. The specimen represents Placopsis gelida (L.) Lindsay, the generitype of Placopsis (Nyl.) Lindsay. 51. Lichen geographicus L., Species plantarum 2: 1140 ( 1 753). z e w ~ ~ z. i ~LICHEN w lcprofus zyxwvutsr Aavcfccnr: lincolir nigrit mappain rcfcrcns. Fl. J u r r . 940. Lichenoidcs nigro-fhvurn tabula: gcographics M a r piBum. Dill. rnigc. I 26. t . 18. f. s,. Ifabitat in Europe rupib14~altis. 318 zyxwvutsr zyxwvut zyxwv zyxwvutsrqp zyx P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), citing a single synonym, that of Dillenius (1 742). There are no specimens of this saxicolous crust in LINN. Hawksworth & Sowter (1969: 58) showed that the name can be typified on the Dillenian element, but incorrectly designated the specimen in the Dillenian herbarium as the type. We have therefore designated the cited Dillenian illustration as lectotype with the corresponding specimen in his herbarium as epitype. As already pointed out by Santesson (in Weber, 1963: 25), there is no reason to regard the name as a nomen ambiguum as suggested by Runemark (1956: 89). Linnaeus did not use this name in any broader sense than many of the other species names we accept, and it is quite possible to typify the name without ambiguity. The type represents Rhizocarpon geographicurn (L.) DC. and belongs to the main form, called R. linei (Tornab) Runem. subsp. uulgare Runem. by Runemark, both chemically (psoromic and rhizocarpic acids) and in spore-size (32 x 12 pm). It is the generitype of Rhicocarpon Ram. ex DC. zyxwvut zyxwvut zyxwv zyx zyxw 52. Lichen glaucus L., Species plantarum 2: 1148 (1753). ~/nfirxr. 43. LTCFIEN foliaccus dcprefliis Iobitus glaber: nirrgine CI i$u t:lriii;icco. t.2. Jurc. y66. Liclteiic)idcs cirdivic foliis crifpis fplcndcntibus fubtus nigiicniitibus. Dill. ~ n f i .19'~.t. zf.f. 96. Muico-I;uii;us licliciioides arboruin crilpiis cincrcuc fllbtur: n'giicans. iMa,i/: k i j l . 3.p. 633. 6 I t . 7.J .,I. Rd11,rtirc Euroyxjfiigid,c,prRJcrtim s u c c i x , ti.;rnc;r UF~U~~X~S. a;*dorcnr. Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica ( 1745)) but removed the word repens. He cited two synonyms from other sources (see above). There are two sheets in LINN, one annotated by Linnaeus, 1273.139, with both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (42, 966). This is the obvious lectotype which was designated by Howe (1912: 201) and repeated by Culberson & Culberson (1968: 534). We restrict this choice to the lowest specimen, directly associated with the Flora suecica number (Fig. 35). The lectotype represents Platismatia glauca (L.) Culb. & C. Culb., the generitype of Platismatia Culb. & C. Culb. 53. Lichen globzferus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 713; Mantissa plantarum: 133 (1767). globifew. zyxwv 9 r . LICHEN fruticulofus folidus lsvis , tubcrculir g b boEs cavis tcrminalibus. Lichen fruticulofus coralloides non tubulofus cinereus rsmofifiimus, receptaculis Tphaericisroncoioribus. Mich. pen. 1 0 3 . t . 39. f. 6. Coralloides cuprefiforme , capitulis globofis. Difl. mu/;. 117. t . 1 7 . f, 3f. Hubitat i n Tingitana. P h i . ir Anglih. Dill. Stcrbrohult Smolandiae. F'lanr. Similii Lich. pnfczli, f i d lavior, upbylluJ, ramis t c r minariZ globis corcavis w e parvo fidaricc biantibYZ, ilrt#J #igtiJ, , LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 319 zy zyxwvutsr Figure 35. T h e lectotype of Lichen gluucus L., LINN 1273.139, the lowermost (of two) specimens on the sheet. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen. He also cited two synonyms from other sources (see above). There are two sheets in LINN, 1273.251 and .252 annotated by Linnaeus filius, who is recorded as the collector in the text. These are most certainly specimens from the excursion with Zokga a t Stenbrohult mentioned above, and Howe’s typification (1912: 201) using 1273.251 (Fig. 36) is accordingly correct, though he believed the specimen to be annotated by Linnaeus. The lectotype represents Sphaerophorus globosus (Huds.) Vain. of which it is a synonym. zyxwvu zyxw zyxwvutsrq zyx zyxw zyxw 54. Lichen gracitis L., Species piantarum 2: 1 152 (1 753). prilit. 61. LICHEN fcyphifcr ramofus dcnticulatus filiforrnis. kl. fncc. ,97y Liclicii pyxidatus & corniculatus ramorus alpiiius e ful’co cincrens, pyxidulis crenatis. Afirh. gen. 8 1 . g . 4 1 . J: f a Coisiloidcs Ccyphifortiic Ccrratuin elatius, caulibus gracilibus glnhris. DIII. f t ~ ? / ; li3. . t . 14. j : ’13. fi4 ii fc o - Tu ii p, 11s 17 y I id n t u s g r ac i I ior rn mofu s , cal y ci biis k t r a t i s . ‘llorij: h i / / . 3. p. 362. J I T . t . 7 I;’ 6. I I n b i t n t iri Europn: e r i c c t h , ~ ~ o ~ , l o ~ s , l ~ l ~ a l ; ~ ; ~ . zyx 320 zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwvu P. M. J 0 R G E N S E N E T A L . zyxwvut zyxw Figure 36. The lectotype of Lichen globiferus L., LINN 1273.251, the epithet ‘globifer’ written by Linnaeus filius. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica, adding three synonyms from other sources (see above). There are two sheets in LINN, one of which, 1273.221, is annotated by Linnaeus with both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (61, 975). However, this specimen belongs to what is currently named Cladonia crispata (Ach.) Flotow. The specimen representing the Dillenian illustration is, however, Cladonia gracilis (L.) Willd. as presently understood, and Ahti (1993: 79) has lectotypified it on this element (‘f. 31’ is a correctable misprint for ‘f. 13’). We select here the corresponding specimen in the Dillenian herbarium as epitype. zyx zyxwvu zyxwv zyxw zyxwvuts 55. Lichen hirtus L., Species plantarum 2: 1155 (1753). 77. LICHEN filsmentofiis ramoliiEmus ereCtus, tuber- hirtru. culis tiriiiaccis iparlis. FI. h p p . 939. U l‘nca vulpti1Tim~tenuior Sr brevior line orbiculir. Diii. mu/;. 67. t . 1 3 . f. 1 2 . Mufcus ramofus. y8bern. i c . 807. H d i t a t in Europz arboridsf, fipimrniis. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyx zyx 321 Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica (mistakenly cited as Fl. lapp.) and appends two synonyms from other sources (see above). There are six sheets in LINN, three with Linnaean annotations, but only one, sheet 1273.292, with both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (77, 984). This sheet was recorded as type by Howe (1912: 201), but with a note that it was a composite. Although he also indicated, with a label, this sheet as the type, he unfortunately regarded it as the type of L. plicatus, and not L. hirtus. This error was caused by the confused numbering, as the Flora suecica number (984) refers to L. plicatus of that work. However, Linnaeus has also annotated the sheet with ‘77 hirtus’ (Fig. 37), which is in accordance with Species plantarum. We interpret this as a change of mind on his part, a re-identification of this specimen. It cannot therefore serve as a type for L. plicatus as understood in Species plantarum, nor can we accept that L. hirtus was formally correctly typified by it by Howe. T h e specimen selected by Howe represents Usnea lapponica Vain. We have therefore turned to the Dillenian element, reported by Crombie (1880) to be Usnea hirta (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg. Unfortunately this is not zyx zyxwvu Figure 37. T h e lectotype of Lichen hirtus L., LINN 1273.292 (part of this number written by Savage, seen to the right), with Howe’s typification label. This is the lichen currently known as Usnea lapponica Vain. T h e sheet was initially annotated by Linnaeus with the number of Lichenplicatus from Flora suecica, but was reidentified by him later as L. hirlus when working on Species plantarurn. 322 zyxwv zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqponm zyxw zyxwv P. M. JDKCENSEN E l AL. correct as the relevant specimens (marked ‘C’, ‘D’) are Usnea cornuta Korb. and two other collections (marked ‘A’) represent Usnea wasmuthii Ras. (from England) and Usnea hieronymii Krempelh. (from Buenos Aires). An additional young specimen, marked ‘B’, appears to be Usnea cf. subjoridana Stirt. Since this illustration is the only original material at our disposal, we have lectotypified Lichen hirtus on it. However, in order to avoid an unnecessary name change we will separately propose that the name be conserved with a new type, conforming with the present concept of the species. zyx zyxwv zyxwv 56. Lichen islandicus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 145 ( 1753). 30. LICHEN foliaccus adfcendens laciiiiatus ; margini- l.‘lmdicfir. bus clcvatis: ciliatis. Ff. fzec. 9fg. M a t . ;ired. 493, Lichen foliis oblongis iacitiiatis : inarginiLm conillveiltibus ciliatis. Ff. lapp. 4 f j . R ~ J .Iug,.L-. 50s. Hali. he1-i). 7 j. Lichct: tcrreltris, foliis cryngii. Bixlt. ccnt. 2 . p . I I . t . 6. .:. I . 2 . L i c i w : i d c s rigidutn, eryngii folia referens. D2/, ma/.. 229. r . zyxw zY. f: I I I . Wluicus iflmdicus purpns. Bortich. act. Hafa. 1674. p . 116. p, Lichcnoides eryngii folk referens ,tcnuioribus & crifpioribub foliis. Dril. Iliufc. L I Z . t 28. t . I 1 2 . . Corelloides teiiuifiinuni nigricans ,mundi muliebris in- tenuiliimus. *’ itar tentwm. DJI. mrgc. 113. t. 17. j : 32. Habitat in Europie lj’lvisJeriliflmir, Pinrtis. terrefiris, Varietas Y . halita: frequens in Jeriliflmir collibur Sue- c h , Ramulis omnino terrtibur, intnsAc6wis, ncc ciliatis adeoqrc diverJli4imrvr ; a t color Iiridns biJs rzrbra , =aria fpecimiza eJe e-“ L rxc*n:. , 3 gradxi, rtn.7m candcm;lm/peciem Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and also cited through Materia medica ( 1749), as well as his first treatment in Flora lapponica ( 1 737). He further cited synonyms from three other sources (see above). There are three sheets of this lichen in LINN, one of which, 1273.97, is annotated by Linnaeus with both Speciesplantarum and Flora suecica numbers (30, 959). This is the obvious lectotype, and has already been designated as the type by Howe (1912: 201). Karnefelt (1979: 98) restricted this choice to the lower specimen on the sheet (Fig. 38). The lectotype represents Cetraria islandica (L.) Ach. subsp. islandica, the generitype of Cetraria Ach. 57. Lichen islandicus var. tenuissimus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 145 ( 1753). For original text, see the species. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Dillenius ( 1742). There are two sheets in LINN which have been referred to this variety, only one, 1273.100, is annotated as ‘30 y’ by Linnaeus (Fig. 39). Howe therefore was correct in designating that sheet as lectotype, while Karnefelt (1987: 51) incorrectly called it the holotype. LINNAEAN L I C H E N NAMES 323 zyxwvutsr zyxwvutsrqp Figure 38. The lectotype of Lichen islandicus L., LINN 1273.97, the lowermost of three on the sheet, with Howe’s typification label. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. Figure 39. T h e lectotype of Lichen islundicus var. tenuissinus L., LINN 1273.100, with Howe’s typification label. T h e first two numbers written by Linnaeus. ‘30 tslundicus’ written by Olof Swartz. This is the lichen currently called Coelocaulon aculeatum. 324 zyxwvutsrq zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxw zyxwvut zyxwvut zyxwvut P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. The lectotype specimen represents Coelocaulon aculeatum (Schreb.) Link, the generitype of Coelocaulon Link. 58. Lichen jubatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1155 ( 1753)) nom. re@. 73. LICHEN filamentofus pendulus: axillis coinprefis. jlbnl.r. Fl. j i t c c . 536. Lichen rimis !iliformibus ramofis pendulis, aIis conp r e s s . lX lapp. 4 ~ 6 , Ufnea jubats nigricins. Dill. mufi. 64. t . 12. f. 7. Muicus arbnruin tiiger 9r tenu!Or. Doci. pcmpt. 471. Haditat in Europa: jjlfvis rlipibur. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and also cited his first treatment of it in Flora lapponica (1737). He further cited two synonyms from other sources (see above). There are two sheets of this name in LINN, one of which 1273.281, is annotated by Linnaeus with both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (73, 1386; in mistake for 986). This is the obvious lectotype, designated by Howe (1912: 201)) and Hawksworth (1970: 238) restricted this to the left hand specimen, excluding the specimen referable to Alectoria sarmentosa (Ach.) Ach. (Fig. 40). The lectotype appears to be a coarse, sparsely branched specimen of Bryoria fremontii (Tuck.) Brodo & Hawksworth without the characteristic yellow soralia, rather than A . prolixa as understood by Motyka (1958). Since the name had been so widely adopted for brown hanging Bryoria species, Hawksworth & Sherwood (1981: 348) proposed the name for rejection, and this was recommended by the Committee for Fungi and Lichens (Korf, 1986: 555), and Lichenjubatus is now listed as a rejected name. 59. Lichen juniperinus L., Species plantarum 2: 1147 (1753). zyxwvut 40. LICHEN folixeus Iaciniatus crilpus h!vus, peltis li- jumijwrisrr. vidis. R J n t c . 967. Lkhen fulvus fi\iu?l:s de.iileis laciniuus. FI. iapp. 453. KO,’.luua’!.. i I(:. Hubf+.u :.i Luropr: .irmipcrctir. arborem. D$.i.: B i. parie:ino colare pnilide j7avo ;jbliis laxir c.rr~Siujiwlir;pcl~ir dqco Lrunneis. zyxwvutsr Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica ( 1 745), but notably added the words peltis lividis. He further recorded his first treatment of the species in Flora lapponica (1737) and cited one other work (see above). There are six sheets in LINN referred to this species, of which Linnaeus has annotated four. Two of these, 1273.129 and 1273.132, have both Speciesplantarum and Flora suecica numbers and both are particularly relevant in the discussion on the lectotype choice. None of the Linnaean specimens belongs to Vulpicida ( = Cetraria) juniperinus (L.) Mattsson & M.J. Lai as presently understood. This is a case where the Linnaean species-concept changed considerably over the years. There is no doubt about the identity of the lichen described by him from Lapland, but zyxwvu LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 325 zyxwvutsr zyx Figure 40. T h e lertotype of Lichen jubatus L. (at arrow), LINN 1273.281 (that number written by Savage), with Howe’s typification label. T h e other inscriptions by Linnaeus. This is a form of the lichen currently known as Bryol-iafrernontii. 326 zyxwvutsr zyxwvu zyxwvu zyxwv P. M. J0RCENSEN E'T AL. unfortunately this specimen has not been traced (see p. 265). As shown by the existing specimens, as well as the text, Linnaeus considerably widened his concept of Lichen juniperinus in Flora suecica ( 1745), by including both Xanthoria parietina (L.) Th. Fr. (viz. 1273.129) and Vulpicida tubulosus (Schaer.) Mattsson & M. J. Lai ( = Cetraria alvarensis (Wahlenb.) Vain.) (viz. 1273.128 & .132) in it. The manuscript of Species plantarum clearly shows (see p. 392) that he only became aware of the confusion with Xanthoria parietina, after having written the first version of Species plantarum. He added Lichen parietinus to the manuscript and at the same time he emended the text of L. juniperinus, removing the reference to Dillenius, specifically indicating the distinguishing characters (but evidently forgetting to correct the inscription on sheet 1273.129). The mention of apothecia in the protologue plays an important part in this change and comments. Since both 1273.128 and .132 are represented by sterile specimens, it is clear that Linnaeus must have based his revised species concept on a fertile specimen of Vulpicidajuniperinus, now missing from his herbarium. In spite of this, it is impossible to escape the fact that the existing sterile specimens were included within the Linnaean concept in both these works. It is therefore not possible to prove that Howe (1912: 201) was in error in designating one of these sheets (1273.128) as lectotype and Mattsson (1994) restricts this choice to the right hand specimen (Fig. 41). The lectotype represents Vulpicida tubulosus, and to avoid an undesirable name change, the name Lichen juniperinus will separately (Mattsson, 1994) be proposed for conservation with a new type according to the present concept of the species, which is in agreement with the Linnaean concept in Flora lapponica. zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvutsr 60. Lichen Lacteus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissa plantarurn: 132 (1767). la&eus. 86. L I C H E N leprofus albus , tuberculis concoloribus hemifphaericis. Habitat nbiqne in rvpibrr, faxh, Tubercula majufiiirr fin:. ztrggs. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, basing it entirely on the specimen sent to him by Zoega, citing no other references. There are no specimens of this saxicolous crustose lichen in LINN. Accordingly a neotype securing the present concept of the name, has been designated. The neotype represents Pertusaria lactea (L.) Arnold. zyxwv zyxwvuts 61. Lichen lanatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1155 ( 1 753). 74. LfCHEN filammafur ramoiifimus decumbens im-lmrtwr, plic3Nls opacus. 8 l . j k c . 987. Uliiea l a m iiigrie inItar faxis adhzrens. Dill. mu/;.66. t . 13. f. 8. Habitat irr Europz frigid& r # p i h . LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyxwv 327 zyxwvutsrqp zyxwvutsrq zyxwvuts Figure 41. The lectotype of Lichen juniperinus L., LINN 1273.128 (part of this number written by Savage, seen on the right), the right-hand specimen at the top of the sheet. Other inscriptions by Linnaeus. This is the lichen currently named Vulpicida tubulosus. Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica ( 1745), but added the word opacus. H e also cited Dillenius (1742). There is a single sheet in LINN, 1273.284, annotated by Linnaeus, inscribed only with the Speciesplantarum number, 74. Howe (1912: 201) regarded this as the type (Fig. 42). There are, however, several problems concerning the dating of this specimen. The annotation, ‘L 89’, has been attributed to Loefling who was a 328 zyxwvutsr zyxwvu P. M. J 0 R C E N S E N E T AL. zyxwvuts zyxwvuts Figure 42. The lectotype of Lichen lanutus L., LINN 1273.284. T h e annotations in pencil are all by Sir J. E. Smith. Other inscriptions by Linnaeus. student of Linnaeus (1745-49) and collected in Portugal and particularly in Spain (175 1-53). Some of Loefling’s Spanish material reached Linnaeus in time to be included in Species plantarum, and was added with clear reference to Loefling, obviously in the last stages before the work went to print. I n the case of Lichen lanatus there is no such printed reference nor have we been able in the letters from Loefling to Linnaeus or in lists of his material to find any reference to this lichen or the collecting number. Such low numbers are usually found among the grasses collected by Loefling in Spain (Lbpez Gonzalez, pen. comm.). We cannot therefore rule out the possibility that ‘L’ in this particular case does not refer to Loefling or that the material might have been collected by Loefling when he was a student in Uppsala. I n spite of these uncertainties Howe’s typification must be accepted, since we have not been able to prove him wrong. The specimen represents Ephebe lanata (L.) Vain., the generitype of Ephebe Fr. zyx zyxwvutsr zyx zyxwv zyxwv zyxw zyxwvut zyxwvuts LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 329 62. Lichen leucomelos L., Speciesplanlarum ed. 2, 2: 1613 (1763). 34. LICHEN foliaceus linearis tamorus tus, peltis Cubpedunculatis radiatis. . nigro-fubcilia- ) t u t o i n e ~ o ~ . Hobitat in America mcridiwasli. Folia &a/i ramofa, linearia line& wnius diamrrre, palatentia iarqnatia lotlea, fnpra gtabra ¶ fibZ;zijrim,a, marginc rarivr ciliata pilir ienporibur atris ¶ /nbramu/iJ. Pelto brm*barica a l b , COWcaws, p r d u u c u l ~ ~ amarginr , fubradiatr : dmtrbwJ [ubufatis, albir. , , Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, evidently based on the specimen which had been sent to him, together with a description. This specimen is still present in LINN, 1273.109, marked ‘Amer.’ by Linnaeus (Fig. 43). It represents the holotype (Swinscow & Krog, 1976: 124), and is Helerodermia leucomelaena (L.) Poelt. As pointed out by Salisbury (1978: 132-134), the epithet Eeucomelos is Figure 43. The holotype of Lichen leucomelos L., LINN 1273.109, Note that Linnaeus annotated i t as leucomelus, and gives the lorality as ‘amer.’ The pencil annotations to the right are by Sir J. E. Smith. 330 zyxwvuts zyxwv zyxwvu zyxwvutsrq zyx P. M. J0RGENSEN E l AL. meaningless, referring to ‘white melody’. We agree with him that Linnaeus clearly intended to reflect the contrast between white and black, a feature of the thallus of this species, the correct Greek terminology for this being leucornelas/ leucomelaena. The then editor of The Lichenologist (D. L. Hawksworth) in a n appended comment to Salisbury’s paper maintained with support from ‘several colleagues’ that it is not possible to prove that this is a misprint, and the name cannot therefore be corrected according to the Code. However, the sheet of the type specimen is inscribed leucomelus, clearly showing that Linnaeus attempted to latinize the Greek black-white epithet (though he did not succeed in doing it correctly, as in several other cases of epithets of Greek origin). We therefore regard it as correctable and see no reason for the continued use of a meaningless epithet. zyxwv 63. Lichen miniatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 149 ( 1753). Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, also citing two other synonyms (see above). There are no specimens in LINN, and Linnaeus evidently had no specimens of his own. We therefore designate the cited Dillenian plate as lectotype with the corresponding specimen in his herbarium (OXF) as the epitype. The lectotype represents Dermatocarpon miniatum (L.) Mann, the generitype of Dermatocarpon Eschw. zyxw zyxw zyxwvutsr 64. Lichen nivalis L., Species plantarum 2: 1 149 ( 1 753). 31. LICHEN foliaceus adfccndens Iaciiiiatus crirpus gla- w i d i f . bei 1;lciinofus albljs rnarginc elcvato. 11. &c. 9f8. .Lichen nivcus hubus dledaleIs hcinistus, r:\mis ereais, c d p orbiculrto. Fl, h p p . 496. t 1 I . J: I . Lichcnoides lacunoium candldum glaorum , cndivia: crilpa: fkie. Dill, mnjc. 162. t. 21.f : 56. Habitat ix Lapponia: Upfaliz, Grbnlindiz alpinis, apriiis ,fircis, g/nreo/ir. terrz/ris. , Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and also included a reference to his first record of this lichen in Flora lapponica (17 3 7 ) . H e further cited Dillenius (1742). There are two sheets in LINN, one of which, 1273.101, is annotated by Linnaeus with both Species plantarum and Flora suecica number (31, 958). It is the obvious lectotype, already selected by Howe (1912: 201). We restrict this choice to the bottom left specimen (Fig. 44). T h e lectotype represents Cetruriu nivalis (L.) Ach. zyxwvu LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 33 1 zyxwvuts zyxwvutsrq Figure 44. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen nivalis L., LINN 1273.101, with Howe’s typification label. Other inscriptions by Linnaeus. zyx zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvuts zyxw zyx zyxwvu zyxw zyxwvut P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. 332 65. Lichen olivaceus L., Species plantarum 2: 1143 ( 1753). 21. LICHEN imbricatus , folioiis 1obzt;s nitidis lividis. d ~ w t w . )I. j u r c . 943. Lichen foliis planis multifidis obtulis: Iaciniis apicc 13tivribus. bi. Iapp. 449. Roy. l q d b . y t I . Lichen CIufia modo arbori'ous ndiiafcens , olivaccus. VatlI. par;/: t . 20. f. 8. Lichenoidrs olivaceum, fcutdlis amplioribus verruccfis. Dill. mnfc. 184. t . 1-1. f. 78. fiabital in Europe rnpibrs. arborrxs r:pJrij. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and cited the first place he published this lichen, Flora lapponica (1737). He also included references to two other synonyms (see above). There are two sheets in LINN, one of which, 1273.66, is annotated by Linnaeus. It has both Speciesplantarum and Flora suecica numbers (21, 948), and has been designated as lectotype by Howe (1912: 201) (Fig. 45), a choice later accepted by Ahti (1966: 10). This is again a case where it is quite clear what Linnaeus was describing in Flora lapponica, the corticolous species which shows the limit of snow-depth on the trees, currently called Melanelia olivacea (L.) Essl. ( = Parmelia olivacea (L.) Ach.). He later broadened the concept of his species to include the saxicolours Neofuscelia pulla (Ach.) Essl. ( = Parmelia pulla Ach.), the species found on sheet 1273.66. Quite clearly Howe's lectotypification is formally correct, and in order to prevent an undesirable change of name we will propose the name to be conserved with a new type, securing the present use of the name. For a recent description of the species see Ahti ( 1966: 10). 66. Lichen omphalodes L., Species plantarum 2: 1143 (1 753). 20. LICHEN imbricatus , fo:iolis multifidis glabris o ! . r - O m h ~ O ~ . FuiiBis vagk ernine!ir:bus. f i . / w c . 9+;. Lichen nigricans onrphalodrr. L,'uill.par;/. I 16. t . i s . tufis incaiiih, f. 1 0 . Lichcnoides faxrtile tinaorium , foliis pilofis purpurcis. Dill. mufc. 13r. t . 24. f 80. Habitrt in Europz t,vpibwr. rnpeJtii ($ arboreus. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica ( 1745) with a slight emendation, using the word incanis instead of canis. He cited two other botanical works in synonomy (see above). There is only one sheet in LINN, 1273.61, which is named omphalodes. This bears both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (19, 946). These are, however, the numbers for Lichen saxatilis and indeed most of the specimens on the sheet represent this species (one specimen is Parmelia sulcata Tayl.). The incorrect addition of the epithet omphalodes must have been a (later?) slip of the pen or an aberration of thought. Linnaeus had obvious difficulties with these two species. In his manuscript for Species plantarum (see p. 388) he first gave the epithet saxeus to L. saxatilis, but changed it to rupestris, and applied saxeus to L . omphalodes. I t was only in the LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyxwv 333 zyxwvutsr zy zyx zy zyxw zyxwvut Figure 45. The lectotype of Lichen olzuaceus L., LINN 1273.66, the lichen currently known as Neofiscelia pulla. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. proof-stages of the book that he finally chose the names by which we now know these two lichens. The citation of Dillenius in the protologue makes it possible for us to designate his illustration 80A, as lectotype with the corresponding specimen in his herbarium (OXF) as epitype. Hale’s typification (1986: 34) of specimens and illustration 80A, is not specific enough to be acceptable. The lectotype represents Parmelia omphalodes (L.) Ach. 67. Lichen pallescens L., Species plantarum 2: 1 142 ( 1 753). prllc/)nr. ~ f LICHEN . Juti. criiltaceus albicaris, fcutcllis pallidis. Ff. 944. Licliciioidcs cruflofuin orbicularc iiicaiium. DdLrnttfc. 1 3 f . 1 . 16. f. 1 7 . Il*b&t i n E u w p corricibvr ardor~m. zyxwvutsr zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RCENSEN E T AL. 334 Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica (1 745), but changed the original word leprosus to crustaceus. He also cited one synonym. There is only a single sheet related to this name in LINN (1273.33), annotated by Linnaeus filius, apparently added to the herbarium after 1753. The reference to Dillenius is clearly a misinterpretation. The specimens on which it is based do not match the Linnaean diagnosis well. Two different species are illustrated, a sorediate species, Diploicia canescens (Dicks.) Massal., and a saxicolous member of the Lecanora dispersa (Pers.) Sommerf. group, neither of which has 'scutellis pallidis', but the latter is at least a fertile species, and therefore a better choice as lectotype. In order to retain current use of the name, it will be proposed for conservation with a new type. The name has traditionally been used for a corticolous member of the Ochrolechia parella (L.) Massal. group, and we have chosen a specimen in conformity with the concept of Hanko et al. (1985: 185) and Brodo (1991: 767). This is a species with variolaric acid in thallus and apothecia, and also gyrophoric acid in the apothecial discs, a chemistry also, though rarely, found in the saxicolous 0. parella. We have had considerable difficulties in distinguishing between certain forms of 0. pallescens and 0. parella, and further studies are necessary to decide whether it is possible to separate the corticolous and saxicolous entities in this group. (If they are united 0. parella, the more widely used name, is to be preferred.) I n northern Europe another similar corticolous species has usually been included in 0. pallescens (for example in Purvis el al., 1992), the unrelated 0. szatalaensis Vers. which belongs in the 0. upsalzensis group (see Brodo, 1991 and Purvis et al., in press). zyx zyx zyxwv zyxwv zyxwvuts 68. Lichen parellus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 710; Mantissa plantarum: 132 ( 1767). Pirellur. 89. LICHEN crufiacens albus, peltis concavis obtufir pallidi>. Lichenoides leprofum tinQoriurn, fcutellis lapidum cancri tigura Dill. r n ~ f i .130. t . 18. f. 10. Paralle d'Auverpe. TogrMef. it. I . p. 233. HIlbircrt is Muru. Linnaeus provided this lichen with a new diagnostic phrase-name and cited Dillenius ( 1742). There are no specimens of this saxicolous, crustose lichen in LINN. We accordingly select the cited Dillenian illustration as lectotype with a corresponding specimen in his herbarium (OXF) as epitype. The lectotype represents Ochrolechia parella (L.) Massal. 69. Lichen parietinus L., Species plantarurn 2: 1 143 ( 1 753). 25. LICHEN irnbricatus, ioliir crirpis-fulvis ,peltis con- prrirtimn. cvloribiis iulvis. Lichcnoides viilgnre dnuofum, toliis & Ccutellis luteis. Urd.mnJr. 180. t. 14. $ 76. Hditnt in Europz pericfibwJ, rnpilni, / ; p i s . orbor m J j 1 r:ippcjfris. zy zyxwvuts LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 335 Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, which he separated from his Lichen juniperinus (see above p. 324). He also cited Dillenius (1 742). There are two sheets in LINN associated with the name, 1273.73 and .74, both bearing the Species plantarum number (25) written by Linnaeus. As Howe (1912: 201) does not distinguish between these two sheets, his comments are not specific enough to be accepted as effective typification. 1273.74 is inscribed ‘L42’ and may have been collected in Spain by Loefling (but see above p. 328 for the difficulties concerning this interpretation). It represents Xanthoria elegans (Link) Th. Fr.; the other, 1273.73, appears to be lobulate, a typical form of X . parietina (L.) Th. Fr. approaching X . ectaneoides (Nyl.) Zahlbr. There is, however, one specimen, 1273.129, of typical X . parietina in the herbarium remaining from the Flora suecica treatment, but this was then treated as a part of L.juniperinus (see above p. 324), but Linnaeus failed to correct the inscription in accordance with his new taxonomic concepts in Species plantarum. Since the two former sheets are not in conformity with the present use of the name, and the latter has not been annotated by Linnaeus according to his Species plantarum nomenclature, we have designated the cited Dillenian illustration as lectotype with the corresponding specimen in his herbarium (OXF) as epitype. The lectotype represents Xanthoria parietina (L.) Th. Fr., the generitype of Xanthoria Th. Fr. zyx zyxw zyxwvut zyxw zyxw zyx 70. Lichen paschalis L., Species plantarum 2: 1 153 ( 1 753) 68. LICHEN fruticulorus folidus teaus foliolif crufl3- pafihnlir ceis. FI. fire, 9 8 2 . Lichen caule ratnolo lolido loliolis cruflaceis teas. Fi. b p p . .+;o. K q . fnxdb. 5 1 2 . alpitius glaucur ramofus botryoides. Jchrutb. Liclicti ‘11P. 13;. 1 . ib. f. 4. Coi :illo:dcs crilpuni & botryoidcs alpillurn. Dill. mufi, Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1 745), and also included a reference to his first publication of this lichen in Flora lapbonica ( 1 737). He furthermore cited synonyms from five other publications (see above). There are six sheets of this species in LINN, two of which, 1273.258 and .259, are annotated by Linnaeus, with numbers from both Species plantarum and Flora suecica (68, 982). As Howe (1912: 201) did not distinguish between these two sheets, his comments are not specific enough to be accepted as a typification. L. W. Riddle has indicated on a label that the central specimen of sheet .259 is the ‘authentic type’. This specimen is annotated by Lamb as belonging to Stereocaulon tomentosum var. orirabae (Th. Fr.) Vain. ( = Stereocaulon myriocarpum 336 zyxwvut zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RCENSEN E T AL Figure 46. The lectotype of Lichenpaschalis L. (at arrow), LINN 1273.259 (that number written by Savage). The central specimen regarded as type by Riddle on attached label (unpublished and not effective typification) is Stereocaulon tomentosum. The other inscriptions by Linnaeus. zyxwvut zyxwvuts LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 337 Th. Fr.), to which he later (Lamb 1977: 308) referred as being either S. tomentosum Th. Fr. or S. myriocarpum-in our opinion the former. Riddle’s choice, however, does not appear to have been published and is for that reason not effective. Lamb (1977: 200) has selected the lowermost specimen of 1273.259 as lectotype (Fig. 46). The lectotype represents Stereocaulon paschale (L.) Hoffm., the generitype of Stereocaulon (Schreb.) Hoffm. For a recent description of the species, see Thomson (1984: 416). zyxwvut 71. Lichen pertusus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissaplantarum: 131 (1767), nom. illeg. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name to this lichen. He also cited three synonyms of other authors, and by the reference to Hudson ( 1 762) also included the type for the species Hudson had named Lichen verrucosus, thus rendering L. pertusus illegitimate. There is one sheet in LINN, 1273.5, which is annotated by Linnaeus, and bears the locality ‘Svec.’. This appears to be his original specimen and is in accordance with the species usually called Pertusaria pertusa (L.) Tuck. Howe (1912: 201) indicated this as the type, but the type of L. pertusus L. is automatically the same as that for L. verrucosus Huds. Hudson ( 1 762: 445) cited only one source for his name, viz. “Dill. 128. t. 18. f. 9”, the same illustration included by Linnaeus. This is, unfortunately, a case of a composite illustration derived from more than one specimen and including characters of two different species: Pertusaria pertusa (with several immersed apothecia per wart) and P. hymenea (Ach.) Schaer. (with one apothecium per wart with a wider, visible apothecial disc). We lectotypify L. verrucosus (and accordingly also L. pertusus L.) on the pertusa element of that illustration with a corresponding epitype in the Dillenian herbarium (OXF). Because of the existence of Pertusaria uerrucosa Mont., Hudson’s epithet cannot be transferred to the genus Pertusaria. Fortunately the epithet pertusa can be retained as P. pertusa (Weigel) Tuck. through use of Art. 58.3 and the new basionym Sphaeria pertusa Weigel in Observationes botanicae: 46 (1 772), as noted in Hawksworth et al. (1980: 75), with the above mentioned lectotype as type. zyxwvu 338 zyxwvutsrq zyxwvut zyxwvut zyxwvu P.M . J0RGENSEN E T AL. 72. Lichen physodes L., Species plantarum 2: 1 144 (1 753) zy Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name and cites also Flora suecica (1745), as well as four other synonyms (see above). There are four sheets in LINN, two of which, 1273.77 and .79, are annotated by Linnaeus and have both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (26, 95 1). Howe (1912: 201) chose 1273.77, the one inscribed 'phys.', as lectotype, and we restrict this choice to the lower specimen (Fig. 47). The lectotype represents Hypogymnia physodes (L.) Nyl., the generitype of Hypogymnia (Nyl.) Nyl. 73. Lichen plicatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 154 (1753). Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1 745), also cited via Materia medica (1749), and further recorded the first work where he treated it, Flora lapponica (1737). He added two other synonyms. There are no relevant specimens in LINN named L. plicatus. However, a specimen named L. hirtus, but with the Flora suecica number (984) of L. plicatus (Sheet 1273.292) is present. We interpret this as a specimen which Linnaeus referred to by the latter name only in Flora suecica (see above p. 321). This again is a case where Linnaeus quite obviously widened his original concept from Flora lapponica considerably. Both Vainio (1880) and Howe (1910b) are of the opinion that Linnaeus originally had in mind Alectoria ochroleuca (Hoffm.) Massal. We LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 339 zyxwvutsr zyxwvuts zyxwvut Figure 47. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen physodes L., LINN 1273.77 (that number written by Savage). The other numbers written by Linnaeus. The abbreviated epithet most possibly written by Linnaeus filius, and not by Linnaeus himself as recorded by Savage (1945: 196). zyxw zyxw find it very difficult to say anything precise on the identity of his species from Lappland because the protologue is too generalized, but A . ochroleuca is not a pendulose species as recorded in the protologue. There is, however, a specimen without any name in LINN, 1273.310, annotated F1. Lapp. 457 on the reverse, which actually is A . ochroleuca. But, at least later, he included in his concept, as witnessed by the Flora suecica specimens cited above, material from the difficult Usnea subJoridana Stirt. complex. Since he referred these to L. hirtus in Species plantarum, the only original element of L.plicatus remaining is the Dillenian illustration and the specimens it is based on. They belong in Usnea ceratina Ach., a species known from southern Sweden, but not from Lapland. T h e name Usnea plicata (L.) F.H. Weber has, because of the imprecise description, been used for several taxa. Motyka (1937: 230-231) has tried to revive the name for a very rare (known only from one collection), poorly understood and circumscribed entity from Central Sweden. We believe it is best to propose the name for rejection, because of its previous wide use and to avoid an undesirable name-change. 340 zyxwvutsr zyxwvu zyxwvu zyxwvutsr zyxwv zyxwvutsr zyxwvu zyxw P. M. JORGENSEN E T AL. 74. Lichen polyphyllus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 150 ( 1 753). pohplvrlrrr. yf, LI (:HEN foliiccus polyphyllus utrinquc lovis crc11. Itll S. Lichenoidcs t e i i w pulluim , foliis utririquc glnbtis. Dill, mwli. 2 2 s . t . 33. f r t g . Habitat in Europa: rrrprbur ciafir apriris. rrp/h-if. I . Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, also citing Dillenius ( 1 742). He did not appear to have had any specimens himself, and there is no relevant material in LINN. Accordingly we lectotypify it on the Dillenian illustration with the corresponding material in the Dillenian herbarium (OXF) as epitype. It represents Umbilicaria polyphylla (L.) Baumg. 75. Lichen polyrhizos L., Species plantarum 2: 1 150 (1 753). zyxwv 56. LICHEN h‘oliacrus polyphyllus utrinquc l s v i s p o i y - p e W S ~ ~ . rhizos. Lichenoides pullum fiipcrnc & glibrum. iiifcrne n i p m & cirrholiim. bill. M u J ~ 226. . t . ;o. f 130. Habitat in Arvonix, Svccia rapibwr uprici5 rlatis. rxpeJris. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, also citing Dillenius ( 1742). There are no relevant specimens in LINN. Accordingly we lectotypify this on the Dillenian illustration with the corresponding material in the Dillenian herbarium (OXF) as epitype. It represents Umbilicaria polyrhiza (L.) Fr. 76. Lichen proboscideus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 150 ( 1753) Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen. He based it on his own material which, according to Afzelius (1 788: 151), had been collected by Solander in “Pite% Lappmark i Lunoes Vaggi vid fjallet Klakkakvarallje”. After the diagnosis Linnaeus included an unusually long and detailed description of the material. This was evidently a late introduction in the work, added a t the proof-stage, as the species is not included in the original manuscript. There is a single specimen in LINN, 1273.204, annotated by Linnaeus. We are quite convinced that this is the holotype, and not a lectotype as indicated by Wei LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyxwv 341 zyxwvutsrqp zyx zyxwvutsrqpon Figure 48. The holotype of Lichen proboscideus L., LINN 1273.204. Inscriptions by Linnaeus, but omnino ( = entirely) added in pencil by Sir J. E. Smith. This is a form of the lichen currently known as Umbilicaria cylindrica. Note the numerous young fruitbodies described by Linnaeus in the diagnosis. (1993: 12), because it agrees with the description in the smallest detail. Particularly notable is Linnaeus’ mention of ‘punctis fuscis elevatis exasperala’, representing numerous young fruitbodies easily observable on this specimen (Fig. 48). The holotype represents the form of Umbilicaria cylindrica sensu Acharius with few marginal rhizinae. As outlined above (p. 264) there has been considerable confusion over this name and U. proboscidea, and Wei (1993) erected an illegitimate nomen novum, Umbilicaria neocylindrica Wei, for the species. There are, however, several older possible synonyms which are available, but a much better solution is our forthcoming proposal to conserve the names involved with new types in accordance with the nearly 200 year long usage. zyxwvu zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwv 77. Lichen prunastri L., Species plantarum 2: 1 147 ( 1753). 39. LICHEN foli.icLus ercP:dculus Iacunofus: fubtus prwrojri. tomeutoiiis aims. kl i , s t c . 5 j+ Lichcii foliis nluilibus cai1dicai:t;bus di<hotomis, caly&us orbiculitis L’effi!ibns. RJ;. 1 ‘ i ; A . f 70. Lichen ciiioreus vulgstiiLmus i3r:iuL cJinaz referens. f’-dJ/l. p J l $ I I Y . t . LO. f. 1 I . 1’. Lichnioidcs coriitxl;m , bronchialc rno:le fubtus incanum. Dill. mu/c. 160.t . 2 1 . f’. ri. H d i t u t i s Europa arboribus ,prsJ>r!im is Prrmofpinofa. zyxwvuts arboreus. 342 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqp P. RI. JBRGENSEN E T AL. zyxwvuts Figure 49. The lectotype of Lichen prunastri L., LINN 1273.125, with Howe’s typification label. All other inscriptions by Linnaeus. zyxw Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica. He also cited three other works. There are three sheets in LINN, two of which are annotated by Linnaeus. 1273.125 has both Speciesplantarum and Flora suecica numbers (39, 954) and is the obvious lectotype, already designated by Howe ( 1912: 20 1 ), but since there are several specimens we restrict this choice to the central specimen as the type (Fig. 49). The lectotype represents Evernia prunastri (L.) Ach., the generitype of Euernia Ach. zyxwvu zyxwvu zyxw zyxwv zyxwvuts LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 343 78. Lichen pubescens L., Species plantarum 2: 1155 ( 1 753). 7 ~ LICHEN . filamentofus ramofifimus decumbens i r n - M t h f . plexus nitidus Ufnei casfpitofa exilis capillace3 m a . Dill. mnfi. 66. t. 1 3 . f: 9. HuLitut in Europa fiptcntrionnL, Lapponia, Suecia. zyxw zyx zyxwvut zyxwv Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, and cited a synonym from Dillenius (1 742). Although Linnaeus records the species from 'Lapponia, Suecia', he appears not to have had any specimens in his herbarium, (see p. 265) and there are no relevant specimens in LINN. Hawksworth ( 1972: 235) incorrectly selected 1273.286 as lectotype, a specimen annotated only by Linnaeus filius. The cited illustration in Dillenius (tab. 13, f. 9) is poor, but could well be Pseudephebe pubescens as presently understood, though in a rather stunted form as shown by the corresponding specimens in his herbarium. We have therefore selected the Dillenian illustration as lectotype with the better developed LINN 1273.286 as epitype. This is the generitype of Pseudephebe M. Choisy. 79. Lichen pulmonarius L., Species plantarum 2: 1 145 (1 735). 32. LICHEN folisceus.1aciiii:itns obtnfiis glsber : fupra W n l c n i k lacuuofus; iilbtus tome11toi'us. fl. j i c r . 969. Mut. m c i . 430. 18, w:gotb. z l f . Lichen Yolotiis oblaigis divih , fuperficie reticuhto-punetata. FI. Iapp. $44. Roy. lngdb. yc9. Lichenoides,puImonrum rdculaturn vulgare ,mnrginibus peltiferis. Dill. innJi. 2 1 2 . t. 29. $ 1x3. Mufcus pulmonarius. . B a d . pin.. 365. Pufmonaria. FwbJ. blj). 631. Cnm. epic. 783. Ilabilat in Iluroye /ylv;i zonbroji~jiiprr rrlorrs antiquA.', pr,tfrriim in khgir & @ ~ t r r u l r s . arborcur. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745). He cited three of his own works, and four others in synonymy (see above). There are four sheets in LINN of this lichen, three of which are annotated by Linnaeus; two of these, 1273.103 and .104, bear both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (32, 960). As Howe (1912: 201) did not distinguish between these two, his action does not constitute an effective typification. Yoshimura & Hawksworth (1970: 36) lectotypified the name correctly, using the lower specimen on sheet 1273.103 (Fig. 50). This specimen represents Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm., the generitype of Lobaria (Schreb.) Hoffm. 344 zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqpo P. M. JQRGENSEN E T AL. Figure 50. The lectotype of Lichen pulmonarius L., LINN 1273.103 (that number written by Savage). The other numbers written by Linnaeus, but the epithet added by his son. zyxwvu zyxwvuts zyxwv zyxwvutsrqp zyx zyxwvu LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 345 80. Lichen pustulatus L. Sfecies plantarum 2: 1 150 ( 1753). pnflnhtnr. 52. zyxwvu zyxw zyxwv LICHEN foliaccus umbilicatus : fubtus lacunofiis. N. Jucc. 969, Licheii folio orbiculato mnrgine iiitegriufculo, riperfick I’ubtus puculata. Fl. h p p . 453. K o y . IngU. 1 1 I . Licheiioidcs c r u l h modo faxis adnarc& vcrrucohs ciiicrcus ti vcluti dcultus. Yudi.pariJ; 116. t . 20. .f. Y. Licheiioides puflulatum cinereuni & veluti ambuflum. Dill. rnnJ2. 227. t . 30. f. 131. I f d i t u t in Eiirop rnpibtis apricis. rqeflris. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and also cited his first record of this species in Flora lapponica (1737). He further cited two other synonyms. There are three sheets in LINN, two of which are annotated by Linnaeus. 1273.201 has both Speciesplantarum and Flora suecica numbers (52, 969). It is the obvious choice as lectotype. It has already been indicated as such by Howe ( 19 12: 20 1) and repeated by Wei ( 1993: 3 ) . Since there are several specimens on the sheet, we have restricted this choice to the uppermost specimen (Fig. 5 1 ) . The specimen represents Lasallia pustulata (L.) Mtrat, the generitype of Lasallia Mtrat. 81. Lichen pyxidatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1151 ( 1 753). 29. LICHEN fcyphifer fimplex crenul3tus, tuberculis P.=iJ~fur. fufcis. Fi. Jim.971. Lichen cnulr limplici, cnlyce turbiasto: marsine tenui. Fl. lapp. 428. Gron. cirg. 203. K O Y . lugdb. y12. Lichni pyxidatus msjur. Z o s r n r f . ixjt. ,y+9. t . 32f.j . D. C’atll. par;/: I I ~ t. . 2 1 . f. 8. iUsrh. g m . b r . t . 41. f. 1. Coralhides fcyphirbrme, tuberculis fufcis. DiN. mnfi. 79. t . 14. f.6. Fuiigus terrettris pyxidatus. N u g n . hort. 83. t 83. p . Lkhcii c3iilr lirnplici, ciiyce turbinsto: ceiitro limplicirer pro\ire:u f.2. l d p . 491. Kuy. Iwg.’i,. $12. Lichrii pyridstus proIitcr. I?. YoJll. p.-rd; I i f . t . 2 1 . f. y. y. zyxwvut zyx 11. Lichril pysidatus major alpinus, recepnculis copioiioribus & rutciccrir!Oi!S.h t r h . gen. b z . t . 41.f: 2 . 7.9. H ~ b r t a tin Eurupa: j j h l . Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745). In addition to his own Flora lapponica (1737), he cited no fewer than seven works by other botanists (the synonyms under the unnamed variety p excluded). There are only two relevant sheets in LINN, one of which, 1273.219, is annotated by Linnaeus, but only with the Species plantarum number, 59. It is also marked ‘Kh’, which is a reference to the list of Mgrten Kohler, which confirms that it was added to the herbarium about 1757. It is therefore not original material, but matches his unnamed variety p well, representing Cladonia cervicornis subsp. verticillata (Hoffm.) Ahti, as does the drawing in his field 346 zyxwvut zyxwv zyxwvutsrqpo P. M. J 0 R C E N S E N E T AL. Figure 51. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichenpustulatus L., LINN 1273.201 (that number written by Savage). All other inscriptions by Linnaeus. notebook from Lapland (Fig. 2) and many of the cited works. The corresponding specimens in the Dillenian herbarium (OXF) are mostly (specimens marked D-H), this subspecies. A is C.jmbriutu (L.) Fr., B is C. carneolu (Fr.) Fr. and C is most probably referable to C. chlorophuea (Florke ex Sommerf.) Spreng. The cited illustration t. 41, f. 1 (Fig. 52) from Michelius is, according the specimens in his herbarium (FI), partly C. jmbriata, but the material matching the three specimens to the right (just below ‘Ordo. VIII.’) marked L, as well as t. 41, f. 2 is a very coarsely squamulose morphotype of C. pyxiduta which is quite common in northern Italy (Ahti, pers. comm.). We have accordingly designated the middle specimen of these three on the LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 347 zyx zyxwvuts zyxw zyx Figure 52. Table 41, fig. 1 in Michelius (1729); the specimen a t the arrow is the lectotype of Lichen pyxidatus. zyxwvutsr zyxwvu zyxwv zyx zyxwv zyxw zyxw Michelian illustration t. 41, f. 1 'L' (Fig. 52) as lectotype with the corresponding specimen in his herbarium (FI) as epitype. The specimen represents C. pyxidata (L.) Hoffm. 82. Lichen rangzferinus L., Species plantarum 2: 1153 ( 1 753). 6f. LICHEN fruticulofus perf&atus ramoliifimus, ra-rpnfW~'crin*~ mulis nutantibus. FI. J k c . 980. Lichen caule ere& tereti ramolifimo , alis perforatis. ~lpefhis. Fl?L p p . 437. Gron. virg. 203. I 27. Aoy. lugdb. 7 I I . Coralloides montanum, fruticuli fpecic ubique candicans. DiI!. rnu]'C. 107. t . 16. f. 2 9 . Mulco fungus coralloides montanus runofifimus ciiicrcus vulgaris. hZoriJhiJ.3. p . 633,J ~ ft .. 7. f.9. Murcus coralloides f. corijutus montanus. Bauh. pin. 361. Mufcus coralliiius C. Corallina montins. B a d . hip. I 198. 0.Lichen crulc ramofo, alis perforatis, ramis capitatis. f~lv8ticu5Roy. lirgdb. f , I~. Coralloides friiticuli lpecie c x ~ d k s n fs corniculis rufefcentibus. Dill. mu/;. 1x0.t. 16. f. 30. Mufcus terreltris coralloides ereaus, corniculis ruffeCccntibus. B a d . pin. 361. predr. r f z . Hiabitnr :PI Alpibas, Europs frigid& Jvivis fieriliJmir, Alpeltris d i f e r t a fylvitico, at flos plcnlrs ajimpiici, Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica (1 745), and cited in addition to his own Flora lapponica (1737), six works by other botanists. There are seven sheets in LINN, five of which have been annotated b y Linnaeus. Four of these carry both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (65, 980): 1273.239, .240, .242, .243. They represent Cladonia stellaris (Opiz) Pouzar & Vezda p. max. p., C. rangzfrina (L.) Weber ex F. H. Wigg., C. amaurocraea (Florke) Schaer. and C. stygia (Fr.) Ruoss respectively, demonstrating how broadly Linnaeus circumscribed this, and indeed many other, lichen species. Since Howe (1912: 201) did not distinguish between the four sheets, his action does not constitute effective typification. However, Nourish & Oliver (1974) 348 zyxwvuts zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. zyxwvuts Figure 53. The lectotype of Lichen rangiferinus L., LINN 1273.240. All inscriptions written by Linnaeus. made a detailed study of the relevant material and designated 1273.240 as lectotype (Fig. 53). It represents C. rangiferina which is the generitype of Cladina Nyl . 83. Lichen rangzferinus var. alpestris L., Species plantarum 2: 1 153 (1753). For the original text, see the species. Linnaeus did not provide a separate diagnosis for this name. He obviously first introduced the name in the proof stage of Species plantarum, just next to the Flora lapponica phrase-name of L. rangiferinus, and this has subsequently caused considerable confusion. This case has been carefully evaluated by Santesson (1966: 64) and we agree with him that Linnaeus only intended to treat two taxa, var. atpestris and var. sylvaticus. Nevertheless he published three names which must be typified. Interestingly no specimens in LINN are annotated as var. atpestris. Pouzar and 349 VCzda (1971: 195) designated specimen 'F' of the cited Dillenian illustration, t. 16, fig. 29 as lectotype. We select the corresponding specimen in Dillenius herbarium ( O X F ) as epitype. T h e lectotype represents Cladonia stellaris (Opiz) Pouzar & VCzda which has the same type. 84. Lichen rangiferinus var. sylvaticus L., Species plantarum 2: 1153 ( 1 753) For the original text, see the species. Linnaeus did not provide a new diagnosis for this taxon, but used a polynomial of van Royen ( 1 740), also citing Dillenius (1742) and Bauhinius (1623) as synonyms of this named variety j. There is no material in LINN, nor in L, and we have therefore chosen the Dillenian illustration as lectotype. The corresponding specimen in the Dillenian herbarium (OXF) is what is currently named Cladonia portentosa (Dufour) Coem. (see Ahti, 1978), a younger name at species rank than Cladonia sylvatica (L.) Hoffm. Since Ahti (1961), this latter name has not been in use, and we see no reason to reintroduce C. sylvatica, a name previously used for several taxa. I t will therefore separately be proposed for rejection, as has already been suggested by Santesson ( 1966). 85. Lichen resupinatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1148 (1753). r+pinntfir. 44. LICHEN t'oliaccus r c p i s lobatus, peltis marginalibus p.,lti:is. Lictieii piilmwiarius major f. minor ex obfcuro cineictis: iiitixiic cx a1,w tu:crce:,s, rcceptaculis f l o r u m rubris 3d latcra ob!r)ngis. ,Vlick. qm. 86 8.44. J 1 . 2 . LicIicii:,idcs f i i ~ k i . ~ i ; i ,pcltis polticis icrrugiiicis. UiN. rnuli.. 2 . d . t . 2%.j . &Of. ILditat in LiiIopa: jilvis. tcrrcflris. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, and cited two synonyms of other botanists (see above). There are two sheets in LINN, only one of which, 1273.169, has the Species plantarum number (44)and is annotated by Lirinaeus with the species epithet and a short description 'pelta aversa', referring to the apothecia being formed on the lower surface lobe apices. This has been designated as (lectoftype by Howe (1912: 201) (Fig. 54) and was repeated by James & White (1987: 255). The lectotype represents Nephroma resupinaturn (L.) Ach. 86. Lichen Roccelta L., Species plantarum 2: 1154 ( 1753). Rwctlln. zy zyx zyxwvu zyxw zyx zyx zyxwvu zyx LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 70. LICHEN f r u t i c ~ l ~folidus f ~ ~ aphyllus libramorus, tnhcrculis altcrtiir. Coralloides coriliculatum fafciculare tinEtorium fuci tcrctis facie. Drll. ran/.. I LO. M:tfcus ceranoides palmenlis ,comis digitatir orchili diBus. Yet. X ~ J ' Z .t . 7. f i 1 2 . hlui'cus ceraiioides albus fuIlgoius apiclbiis nigris. Plnk. a h . ~ f f t.. Z O ~ f. . 6. Fucuc msrinus Ihxcclla tiii€torurn. Bnah. pi#. 36f. I'iicus capillaccits Koccclla. 13anb. P ~ N .36f. If,tlitat I M i n j d i r Archipclagi, Canariis, r d rwpri marinas. 350 zyxwvutsr zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. Figure 54. The lectotype of Lichen resupinatus L., L I N N 1273.169. All inscriptions written by Linnaeus. The text just below the specimen is an unusual descriptive annotation ‘pella auersa’. zyx Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen and he cited the works of four other botanists in synonymy (see above). There are four specimens in LINN, one of which, 1273.263, is annotated by Linnaeus. The locality given on the back of the sheet ‘Insula Fyal’ ( = Faial) is one of the islands of the Azores, certainly regarded by Linnaeus to belong to ‘Insulis Archipelagi Canariis’. We have been puzzled by the inscription ‘Chin’ just beneath one of the specimens (Fig. 55). This species is not known to occur in China, nor does Linnaeus record it from there. Perhaps this inscription is a ‘misprint’ for Can(ariis)? However, we are in no doubt that this specimen must have been in Linnaeus’ possession and accordingly accept Howe’s typification (1912: 201), but restrict it to the lower specimen (Fig. 55). The lectotype is Roccella patellata Stirt., which is the correct name for this species, as the tautonym R. roccella is not permitted by the Code. I t is treated as R. tuberculata var. vincentina Vain. by Tavares (1958: 140). LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 35 1 zyxwvutsr zyxwvutsr zyxwvutsrq zyxwv zyxw zyxwvu zyxwv zyxwvu Figure 55. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen Roccella L., LINN 1273.263. All other inscriptions by Linnaeus. 87. Lichen rugosum L., Species plantarum 2: 1140 ( 1 7 5 3 ) wohm. 3. LICHEN Icprofus rlbicans , liiicolis Iimplicibus pun- disque nigris confcrtis. Lichenoides putiCtaturii dt rugofurn nigrum. Difl.gifl. I L ~ s. . 18. f: t . Habita: in Europ-z /y/vir /irpra rrbornm IrHncoJ. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this species which was evidently based only on the Dillenian reference. There is no specimen in LINN, and Hawksworth & Punithalingam (1973: 352 zyxwvut zyxwvutsrqpon P. M. JBRGENSEN E T AL. 503) designated the Dillenian illustration as lectotype. The corresponding material in the Dillenian herbarium represents the non-lichenized fungus Ascodichaena rugosa (L.) Butin and we select this as the epitype of the illustration. The epithet is incorrectly given in neuter form in the original publication by Linnaeus, but he corrected this in the second edition of Species plantarum. zyxwvu zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxw zyxwvuts 88. Lichen rupicola L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissa plantarum: 132 (1767). rupicole 8f. LICHEN leprofus albidus, tubcrculis pallidis albo marginatis. Habitat fxpra rnpcs planrix/crlnJ xwdns apricas in filvif. Zorga. Crulta parvifima. Tubercula intcrdxm f i n t vireo f i e n t i a , J~bcenvcxa abrqnc margine undr diwr/. apparrt. , zyx Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic name and description for this lichen. There are no specimens in LINN of this saxicolous, crustose species, sent to Linnaeus by Zoega. A neotype has been designated by Leuckert & Poelt (1989: 149). The neotype represents Lecanora rupicola (L.) Zahlbr. 89. Lichen saccatus L., Flora suecica, ed. 2: 419 (1755) LIc€lI<N(/hcr,rttrr ) foliaccus r e p s iotiiildus, peltis dcprcflis Iui?tus I k ~ ~ ~ i k . . 1ib2. , . Licliciwidcs licliciiis I’!ic-ic , peltis accrabulis iinmrrlis. Dij1. mrrrc. t 2 3 . t . p j : 1 2 1 . LSnccir S.ick I I I . ~ ~ ~ kHabitat tn ,flpii>ns J,npprmicis ; copiofi ad k c r a Norwegiaill I ~ C t ~ u l l l l rY l p h livlm. FariIr q n u l i r r w r Arc hchcn, p o d r t . 0 prliii faccnm, a p f &inn rnJcriorc drycntlcutrm j o t mat. f . f 4 . Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen and Dillenius (1742) is also cited. There are two sheets in LINN, 1273.196 & .197, both from the original collection by Tycho Holm, a Danish student of Linnaeus. Since Howe (1912: 201) did not distinguish between the two sheets, his action is not precise enough to be accepted as effective typification. Almborn (1966: 104) designated 1273.197 as lectotype, and we restrict this choice to the lower specimen (Fig. 56). The lectotype represents Solorina saccata (L.) hch., the generitype of Solorina Ach. zyxwv zyx 90. Lichen sanguinarium L., Species plantarum 2: 1140 (1753). fin~fhrri- urn. 4. LICHEN Ic rofiis ciiiereo-vireCccns, tgbcrculis rtris,. 1.1. /UCC. 93 . Licheiioider Icprofiim , crulta cinereo-virefcente tuberculis iiitegerrimis. Dill. mujr. 126.:. 18. f: 3. / l a l i t f i t in Eiiro m rwpibns t r x n c : J p c nrborxm. 7 i ~ l r r r dmnjr&ula, ~ gibba , strn, at d$ra&Ia irrt#r E rubra Jwnt. , LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 353 zyxwvutsrq zyxwvutsrq zyxwvutsrq zyxw Figure 56. The lectotype of Lichen saccatus L., LINN 1273.197. Inscription by Linnaeus. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica (1 745), and added a reference to Dillenius ( 1 742). There are three sheets in LINN, only one of which, 1273.8, has an inscription with handwriting attributed to Linnaeus by Savage (1945). It carries only the Species plantarum number, but from its characters, it is obviously not the specimen on which the phrase-name of 1745 is based. I t is uncertain when this specimen was added to the herbarium, but it was probably after 1763, as there are annotations by Linnaeus in his personal copy of the second edition of Species plantarum describing flat (plana’) apothecia as found in Lecidella elaeochroma (Ach.) M. Choisy, the specimen in question, and not in accord with the original protologue (see below). This sheet cannot serve as type, as believed by Howe (1912: 201). There is, however, another sheet, 1273.10, inscribed ‘4’ (Fig. 57). This Savage believed was written by Linnaeus filius. However, we disagree with him on this point. Although it is unusually elegantly written to be in Linnaeus’ hand, there is a great variation in his way of writing this figure. After having examined this variation, we have concluded that this figure 4 comes close to some of the others, e.g. the first one in ‘44 resupinatus’. In addition, we do not know of any case where Linnaeus filius used numbers from the first edition of @eciesplantarum. He either, and mostly, wrote the full epithet, or used numbers of later editions of Systema naturae. We accordingly select 1273.10 as lectotype. The lectotype represents Mycoblastus sanguinarius (L.) Norman, the generitype of Mycoblastus Norman. T h e epithet was originally incorrectly used in neuter form, a mistake Linnaeus corrected in the second edition (as well as in his herbarium list, p. 263). 354 zyxwvutsrq zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. JQRGENSEN E T A L . zyxw Figure 57. The lectotype of Lichen sanguznarius L., LINN 1273.10. Number most probably written by Linnaeus. Annotations in pencil by Sir J. E. Smith. 91. Lichen saxalilis L., Species plantarum 2: 1 142 ( 1753). Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica (1 745). He also quoted four synonyms from other botanists’ works (see above). There are four sheets in LINN referred to this name, two of which are annotated by Linnaeus. 1273.62 carries both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (19, 946). There is also a specimen, 1273.61, annotated omphalodes by Linnaeus, but with the numbers for L. saxatilis showing the annotation of the name to be a later (?) error of naming (see above p. 332). Sheet 1273.62 was recorded as the type by Howe (1912: 201), as well as by Maas Geesteranus (1947: 143), and Galloway & Elix (1983: 405) specifically chose the second specimen from the bottom as lectotype (Fig. 58). Hale (1986: 38) mistakenly selected the mixed sheet 1273.61 as lectotype, a typification without priority. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 355 zyxwvut zyxwvu zy zyxwv zyxw zyx zyxwvut Figure 58. T h e lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen saxatilis L., LINN 1273.62 (only the two lower specimens on the sheet shown). All inscriptions by Linnaeus. The lectotype represents Parmelia saxatilis (L.) Ach., the generitype of Parmelia Ach., as well as for the rejected generic name Lichen L. 92. Lichen scriptus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 140 (1 7 5 3 ) . .fiiit’ur. 1. LICHEN leprofii; iiticanr , lincoiis nigris rimolic charaCLrrifoi i n i t m . I.]. Juec.. 941. Lichenoidcs crulta tciiuifiirria , pcrcghis vcluti litcris infcripta. Diil. mrr/c. 128. t . 18. f. I . Hm5itnt irr Europx cut.tirilrrs arbarum. 356 zyxwvutsrqp zyxwvut zyxw P. M. J0RGENSEN E T A L . Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica (1 745), adding the word ramosis and a reference to Dillenius. There are n o specimens in LINN annotated by Linnaeus. The material corresponding to the Dillenian illustrations (OXF) belongs to Opegrapha varia Pers. (upper specimen), and what appears to be a poor specimen of Phaeographis cf. dendritica (Ach.) Mull. Arg. or of Graphis scripta (L.) Ach. (lower specimen). As the Linnaean diagnosis has generally been understood to be the latter, we lectotypify Lichen scriptus on the lower specimen on the Dillenian illustration, and select an epitype which clearly represents Graphis scripta (L.) Ach., the generitype of Graphis Adans. zyxw zyxwvutsrq zyxwv 93. Lichen stellaris L., Species plantarum 2: 1144 (1753). Warir- zyxw zyxw LlCI IEN imbricatus : foliolis oblongis laciniatis ailgultis ciiicreis , Ccutellis pullis. Fl. Juec. 950. Lichcn f'oliis lrciniatis ciriercis : laciniis obtufiufculis !&pius npice trifidir. ,Roy. l q d b . fio. Lichen pulmoiiarius vulgatiflimus fuycrne albo-cinereus, i n f i i i i c iiigiicaiis, feginciitis ~iigufiis,receyticulis nigricmtibus. Alirh. p ~ 9r. . 't. 41. J; 2. Licheiioides cineteuin , l'egnreiitis atguris ltellatis ,fcuCellis nigris. Dill. mfi. 176. 1. 24. f. 70: 27. I f a h t a t i n Europz ramis arbsrrm. Afinii pinrimurn L . rnpeflri. arborens. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and added three synonyms (see above). There are two sheets in LINN, one of which, 1273.81, is annotated by Linnaeus with the Species plantarum number only. Although it is certainly not the element on which the phrase-name from 1745 was based, we believe that Linnaeus had the specimen in his herbarium in 1753. Howe (1912: 201) recorded this specimen as type, and since we cannot prove him wrong, we accept this choice, though with a restriction to the upper left specimen (Fig. 59). The lectotype represents Physcia stellaris (L.) Nyl. 94. Lichen sQgius L., Species plantarum 2: 1143 (1753). 23. LICHEN imbricatus, foiiolis palmatis incurvis mis.hW- kl. Jkec. 949. fivbitar irr Suecia,- imprimis in Infu!s Eilthici Blikuila. rnpeJrir. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1 745). There are no synonyms. There are two sheets in LINN named sggius, one of which, 1273.70, is annotated by Linnaeus. However, as pointed out above (p. 308), this bears the numbers for L. fahlunensis, and is clearly not the element used for the diagnosis of L. sQgius. It is not easy to interpret Linnaeus' diagnosis, particularly since there are three common, rather similar-looking species with the same ecology, and Linnaeus clearly had difficulties in separating them. We have selected a neotype LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 357 zyxwvut zyxwvutsrq zyxw zyxwvuts zyxwvu zyx zyx Figure 59. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen stellurzs L., LINN 1273.81. Number written by Linnaeus; epithet possibly by his son (not by Olof Swartz as suggested by Savage, 1945: 196). in accordance with the present usage of the name for Melanelia s9gia (L.) Essl., the generitype of Melanelia Essl., but to achieve this the name Lichen fahlunensis must be rejected at the same time (see above). 95. Lichen subfuscus L., Species plantarum 2: 1142 (1753), nom. rejic. CC(u/mr. 1.6. L1CHT.N crultncciis rlbicins, fcutcllis fubfufcis : iiiar$iiie ciiierco fubctcnato. PI. J k c , 943. Licheiioidcs crulhceuin & IcproCurri, fcutellis fubfufcis. Dill. mxic. 134. 1. 18. f. 16. I l d i l n t irr EUrop, arltorib~s($ rupibvr i m a f i m s . Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica ( 1 745), but changed the word leprosus to crustaceus. He also cited one synonym from Dillenius ( 1742). There are no specimens in LINN annotated by Linnaeus. Although Motyka (1977) selected a neotype (in Herb. Acharius, UPS), the Dillenian illustration 358 zyxwvuts zyxwvutsrqpon zyxwv zyx zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxw zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AI, must be regarded as original material available for lectotypification. This procedure was adopted by Brodo & Vitikainen (1984: 294) who also identified a typotype in the Dillenian herbarium (OXF), which they claimed to be Lecanora allophana (Ach.) Nyl., a species not known to occur in Great Britain; the specimen most possibly represents a form of L. horiza (Ach.) Lindsay. Vitikainen & Brodo later (1985) proposed that the name be rejected because of its diverse application within the difficult L. subfusca complex. This was approved by the General Committee (Nicolson, 1983). 96. Lichen subulatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 153 ( 1 753) 67. LICHEN fruticulofus fubdichctomus, rsmis fimplici- fiibwlntnr. hus fubulatis. N.fncc. 931. Lichen caule ereAo dichorvmo , ramis fubulatis. Fl. lepp. 43s. Roy. Ingdb. 712. Coralloides corniculis longioribus Pt rarioribus. DiN. m&. 102. t. 16.f. 26. Mufcus corniculatus. l a b c m . ic. Sog. B a d . &?. 3. Hp. 767: ubitat Europz filwis i~ crirctis. Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica, but omitted the word tubulosus (obviously removed in the proof stage) and substituted the word subdichotomus for dichotomus. He noted his first publication of this lichen in Flora lapponica (1737), and cited works of four other botanists (see above). There are two sheets in LINN, one of which, 1273.249, is annotated by name only by Linnaeus. This specimen is Cladonia subulata (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg., and it was designated as lectotype by Laundon (1984: 110). However, the absence of a number makes it almost certain that, unfortunately, it was added to the herbarium after 1753, and accordingly cannot serve as a type. The material (OXF) on which the Dillenian illustration is based represents Cladonia furcata (Huds.) Schrader. No van Royen material has been traced. However, the cited Tabernaemontanus illustration ( 1590) is surprisingly good (Fig. 60), and though stylized, it can well be interpreted as C. subulata. We accordingly designate the upper specimen of this as the lectotype and select LINN 1273.249 as the epitype. This is the generitype of Cladonia Hill. 97. Lichen tartareus L., Species plantarum 2: 1141 (1753). 14.LICHEN crchceus ex albido vircfccns , fcutollis t r i t m w . tfavei'tendbm: mnrgine albo. Lichen l e p r o h candidus, fcutellis fufcir : rnargine 31bo. FI. / i ( c c . 941. Lichcn t i n t h i u s ruber. It. el. 20. Ir. w:grtb. 146. Lichenoidrs t3rt3retim farinoccum, f'ciitellarum umbone fufco. Dill. muJc. 131. I . 18. f. I 2 . Liciicii cruflaccus tnxntilis farinaccus vcrrucofus candid,:s ultliliclll crofli(liinus, rcccptaculis florutii nigtim cantibus. M c h . g c n . 96. t . 12. f, 6. Hnbitn/ in Luropa adprtrirtrs rupiwm. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyxwv 359 zyxwvuts zyxwvutsrq Figure 60. The figure to the left in pars 11, sectio XI, p. 809 of Tabaernaernontanus (1590), thc upper specimen ( a t arrow) lectotype of Lichen subulatus L. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, but cited several of his own works, as well as two other synonyms (see above). There are no specimens annotated by Linnaeus in LINN. T h e material in the Dillenian herbarium (OXF) corresponding to the cited illustration is in a poor state, but belongs in Lecanora and is not in good accord with the Linnaean protologue, since neither the thallus nor the apothecia are in conformity with those characters in the Linnaean description. The same is the case with the reference to Michelius. T h e corresponding material in his herbarium (FI) is Diploschistes ocellatus (Vill.) Norman. Nevertheless these illustrations are part of the protologue, and we choose the Dillenian illustration as lectotype. However, we will propose Lichen tartareus to be conserved with a new type in accordance with the more than 200 years usage of the name for this important dyeing lichen. The proposed conserved type is the specimen marked ‘n.1’ of the material Burgess sent to Linnaeus from Scotland in 1771 (LINN 1273.31), with a detailed account about the use of this lichen in dyeing, annotated by Linnaeus filius, b u t most certainly seen by Linnaeus. This specimen represents typical Ochrolechia tartarea (L.) Massal. with a thick, 360 zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwvu zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. non-sorediate, pale grey thallus and large, finally flat, pinkish apothecia. I t is the generitype of Ochrolechia Massal. zyxwvu zyxwvu zyx zyxwvu zyxw 98. Lichen uncialis L., Species plantarum 2: 1 153 (1753). 66.LICHEN fruticulol'is pcrt'oratus, ramulis brevifimis uncialir. aciitis. FI. fncc. 979. Lichen c3ule rimoro , 31:s perforstis, rsmis brevifimis ocutis. El. lupp, 438. Roy. lug&. - j 1 1 . Coroiloidcs perforatum minus inolle Sr tenue. Dill. IIIY~C. 99. z. 16. f. 2 2 . Hubitnt iio Eutopz eris'ntir Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and he also recorded his own first publication of this lichen in Flora lapponica (1737) as well as references to two other works (see above). There are three sheets named uncialis at LINN, one of which, 1273.246, is annotated by Linnaeus and has both Species plantarum and Flora suecica numbers (66, 979). This sheet was indicated as the (1ecto)type by Howe (1912: 201) and we restrict this to the lower specimen. It represents a related species now known as Cladonia amaurocruea (Florke) Schaer. (Fig. 6 1 ) . In order to retain the present longstanding concept of C. uncialis, we will propose the name conserved with a new type. 99. Lichen upsaliensis L., Species plantarum 2: 1 142 ( 1753). Linnaeus provided this lichen with a new diagnostic phrase-name. He cited no synonyms. There are three sheets of this species in LINN, two of which are annotated by Linnaeus. Howe (1912: 201) correctly indicated 1273.44 as the (lecto)type, and we have restricted this choice to the upper right-hand specimen (Fig. 63). The lectotype represents Ochrolechia upsaliensis (L.) Massal. For a recent description, see Verseghy (1962: 74). LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 36 1 zyxwvutsr zyxwvutsr zyxwvutsrqp zy zyxwvu zyx zyxwvu zyxwv Figure 61. The lectotype (at arrow) ofLichen uncialis L., LINN 1273.246, the lichen currently known as Ckdonia arnaurocraea. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. 100. Lichen usnea L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 7 13; Mantissa plantarum: 131 (1 767). ?$fix& 84. LICHEN filrmmtodiur pendulur campreffir idmoT i levis. U L'na ceratoider candicam ghbra odorata, Dlii. &,&, 21. 1. 14.5 13. t$ :.,34. f. 10. Habitat i n a r b o r i h Indiae Or. InJ. Helene, mrdaga. fcar, Martinica. JaCQu. FilifirmIr, p a n o /&, inaqwalir , pedalis axillis obrnfi nngwlrr , IX Irrmrlla t Jeparrbrlir ; rtcenr ahdui, ambroJiacw. , 362 zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwvu zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. Figure 62. The lectotype of Lichen usnea L., LINN 1273.278 (that number written by Savage), with the original Jacquin label. Epithet written by Linnaeus. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 363 zyxwvut zyxwvutsrqpon zyx zyxwvu zyx zyxwvu zyxw zyx Figure 63. ‘l‘he lectotype of Lichen upsaliensis L., LINN 1273.44. All inscriptions by Linnaeus. Linnaeus provided this with a new diagnostic phrase-name, and cited one synonym from Dillenius ( 1742). There are three sheets marked ‘usnea’ in LINN, one of which, 1273.278, is annotated by Linnaeus and actually bears the original label in Jacquin’s handwriting with the locality Martinique indicated (Fig. 62). It is a n obvious choice oflectotype and was noted as a type by Howe (1912: 201; 1914: pl. 12, fig. 2)) also regarded as the lectotype by Imshaug (1972b) and Rundel (1978: 149). The lectotype represents Ramalina usnea (L.) R. Howe. For a recent description of the species, see Rundel (1978). 101. Lichen velleus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 150 ( 1753). d t ~ ’ . f ~ LICIIEN . folirceus uinbilicntus fubtus hirfutifirnus. Fl. JUCC. 968. Lichcii folio liibrotundo peltato: margiiie fcre integro, fiibtus iiiaxiinc hirfutus. I.]. h p p . 4f4.Koy. h q d 6 . y t I . Liclicaoidcs coriaceiim, !atiflimo Iolio uiribilicato B vcrrucoii). Diil. mrr/c. f4r. t . 8 ~ ,/:. l h b i t n t in nt’pinIr Lnppoaie, succiz, Aiigliac. rrrpcjlrir. Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica (1 745) with a slight change in one word from hirsutus to hirsutissimus. H e also cited his first treatment in Flora lapponica (1737) and works of two other botanists (see above). 364 zyxwvutsrqp zyxwv P. M. JORGENSEN El&. zyxwvutsr Figure 64. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen uelleus L., LINN 1273.199 (that number written by Savage). All other inscriptions by Linnaeus. zyxwvut zyxwvut There are three sheets in LINN, one of which, 1273.199, is annotated by Linnaeus. It has both Flora suecica and Species plantarum numbers ( 51, 969), and is the obvious choice as lectotype (Fig. 64), already designated by Howe (1912: 201) and repeated by Wei (1993: 14). We restrict this choice to the right-hand specimen. The lectotype represents Umbilicaria vellea (L.) Ach. For a recent description see Thomson ( 1984: 461). zyx zyxw zy zyx zyxwvuts zyxwvu zyxwvutsrq zyxwvut zyxwvut LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 365 102. Lichen uenosus L., Species plantarum 2: 1148 ( 1753). rcrtfijur. 4f. LICI IEN foliaccus rcpeiis ovatus planur ft1lbtc.s ve- , no fu s v i I lo Ccls pc I ti s marg i 11 al i b u s horizon ta I ihur [itec. 964. . Ff. Lkhenoides parvum virefccns, peltis marginalibiis planis. Dill. m ~ / c .208. t . 2 8 . f : 109. Habitat i n Europa ad marginer firobiculorum in /?I? vir. I erre/tri*. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica ( 1745), and cited one synonym from Dillenius (1742). There are three sheets in LINN, one of which, 1273.172, is annotated by Linnaeus. It has both Speciesplantarum and Flora suecica numbers (45, 964), and is the obvious choice as lectotype. However, as noted by Howe (1912: 201), this sheet bears material belonging to several taxa (‘composite’). As annotated by Vitikainen on the sheet, three different species are represented, and only the central four specimens belong to Peltigera uenosa (L.) Hoffm. and one of these will be designated as lectotype (Fig. 65) by Vitikainen (pers. comm.). 103. Lichen uenlosus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 141 ( 1753) 9. LICHEN :eprofiis flavus, tuberculii rubris. HsLitut ir Alpium rwpibar. W?ltOJk. Linnaeus provided this lichen with a new diagnostic phrase-name, and cited no synonyms. There are no specimens annotated by Linnaeus in LINN. Hawksworth (1970: 248) wrongly designated 1273.14 as lectotype, a poorly developed specimen which, with a question mark, is referred to this species by Linnaeus filius. A neotype is required, and we select 1273.15 in LINN which is a welldeveloped exsiccate specimen distributed by Ehrhart, a pupil of Linnaeus. T h e neotype represents the usnic-containing strain of Ophioparma uentosa (L.) Norman ( = Haematomma ventosum (L.) Massal.), the generitype of Ophioparma Norman. 104. Lichen vernalis L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 3: 234 (1767). zyxw vernalis. LICHEN leprofus albidus , tuberculis rubrotundis ferrugineis. Licheiioides leprofum tuberculis fufcis ti fcrrugineis. Dill. mu@. 126.t . 18. f. 1. V t . y y . f. 8 . Habitat primo verr in avidiJimo collc I’olonico .UpCali= &? pa@m in Europa. Cruffa cinrraficnti- alba : Tubercula {idglob&, p h tinoJ4, corqfcrto, [efilia, d s p u c rnargirqc cafycino. Linnaeus provided a new diagnostic phrase-name for this lichen, and he cited one synonym from Dillenius ( 1742). There are no specimens annotated by Linnaeus in LINN. The specimens 366 zyxwvutsrqpon zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E'T AL. zyxwvu zyxwvu Figure 65. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen venoms L., LINN 1273.172 (that number written by Savage). The other numbers and epithet written by Linnaeus. Pencil annotations on right-hand side by Sir J. E. Smith. The annotation syluaticus in ink by Olof Swartz. corresponding to t. 18, f. 4 in the Dillenius herbarium (OXF), represent Bacidia rubella (Hoffm.) Massal. and Arthonia tumidula (Ach.) Ach. No lichen specimen is now extant on the herbarium sheet corresponding to t. 55, f. 8, but the original drawing leaves no doubt about the original presence of a brown-fruited lichen, most possibly a species of the Lecanora subfusca group. Of these only Bacidia rubella has some resemblance to the lichen described in the Linnaean protologue. We accordingly select that Dillenian illustration as lectotype. However, in order to avoid a most undesirable name-change, a new type will zyxwvuts zyx zyxwv zyxw zyxw zyxwv zyxwvuts zyx LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 367 be proposed to preserve the current use of the name. This type represents Biatora vernalis (L.) Fr., the generitype of Biatora Fr. 105. Lichen vulpinus L., Species plantarum 2: 1155 (1753). 78. LICHEN filamentofus rsinoiifinmus ereAus fafiigia- vltlpinwr. tus inxqu3li-ingulofus. FI. J k c . 990. Ufiicr crpillacea citriiia, fruticuli fpccic. Dill. mu/. 7 3 . 1. 1 3 . f. rG. I I u L i t n t i a Europae t d i r iigmir, muris. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica, and mistakenly considered the cited Dillenian reference to be a synonym (it represents Teloschistesjavicans (Sw.) Norman, a very different lichen). There are two sheets at LINN, one of which, 1273.298, is annotated by Linnaeus, but bears only the Species plantarum number (78). However, we believe this is original material, and accordingly accept Howe's typification, restricting his choice to the upper left-hand specimen as the lectotype (Fig. 66). The lectotype represents Letharia vulpina ( L . ) Hue, the generitype of Letharia (Th. Fr.) Zahlbr. For a recent description, see Krog et al. (1980: 182). zyxwvut 106. Mucor fulvus L., Species plantarum 2: 1185 (1753), nom. re&. prop. 4. ILIUCOR p:rcnnis pallidus, pileofulvo. Haii.ar U pli! ia D . Solander. fnlvnr. Linnaeus provided this lichen with a new diagnostic phrase-name and cited no synonyms. There are no specimens in LINN and it is difficult to arrive at any conclusion as to what species this name represents. It has been intepreted as a synonym of Chaenotheca furfuracea (L.) Tibell (see Zahlbruckner, 1922: 640). T h e thallus of that species is citrine to greenish yellow, while this epithet suggests a more tawny, yellowish-brown colour, as in Chaenotheca chrysocephala (Turner ex Ach.) Th. Fr. However, the name remains a species non satis nota. Since it is not in current use, it will be proposed for rejection. 107. Mucor furfuraceus L., Species planlarum 2: 1185 ( 1 753). 5. MUCOR pcrcnnis viridis, foliis furfuraceis, ltipite fi-furfuraccur. litimni, cipitulo globofo. H;;bitJt rn T e r r a nzdu pa$m in Suecia. Dan. Solana'ei-. Linnaeus provided this lichen with a new diagnostic phrase-name and cited no synonyms. There are no specimens in LINN, but in this case the description, in particular the habitat, bare soil, is sufficient to establish a satisfactory identification. We have accordingly designated a neotype in accordance with current use. The neotype represents Chaenotheca furfuracea (L.) Tibell, the generitype of Coniocybe Ach. 368 zyxwvu zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. Figure 66. The lectotype (at arrow) of Lichen vulpinus L., LINN 1273.298 (that number written by Savage), with Howe’s typification label. Text below written by Linnaeus. zy zyxwvu zyx zyxwvut zyxw zyxwvu zyxwv LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 369 108. Mucor lichenoides L., Species planlarum 2: 1185 ( 1 753)) nom. rejic. prop. i\.l U CC)R pcrciiiiis , flipitc fiibulato nigro, cipirulo LitlaenoiJtr. le~iticuli~ri cinerco, Fl. Jiucc. I I 21. Corslloidcs fungiforme arbortim nigrum vix cru2ofurn. Dill. V J H J ~ .7 s . f. 14. f. 3. H.&tat in corticibuj Pini. 1. Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica, changing only the word lentformi to lenticulari and cited one synonym from Dillenius ( 1742). There are no specimens annotated by Linnaeus in LINN. T h e material corresponding to the Dillenian illustration in his herbarium (OXF) represents two species: Calicium viride Pers. and C. salicinum Pers. As a greenish thallus is not mentioned in the Linnaean protologue, we believe the best interpretation of the name is via the second specimen which matches the illustration. This is the smaller, lower specimen (B), which is C. salicinum. Dillenius (1742: 78) confused the thallus colour of the two in the text. Specimen B is the small one with a grey thallus-not greenish as he claims. The lectotype accordingly represents the species presently called C. salicinum, and C. lichenoides (L.) Schum. is the older name which, unfortunately, must be resurrected under the present Code, unless rejected under Art. 56. Since C. lichenoides has not been in use for a considerable time it will be proposed for rejection. zyx zyxwvutsrq 109. Mucor sphaerocephalus L., Species plantarum 2: 1185 ( 1 753), nom. re&. prop. I. MUCOR pcrcnnis, Itipite filiformi nigro, CapIruIohb~ortg l o b o h cincrco. Fl. {zrc. I I 21 I t . /;.an. 29. SFhZruCe$tiI!cj t . 1 . f. 3. niycr, villa Iial/i:at in Parietibus OchrOkUCO. pbnlrir k f d . b r h . 3. , Lapidibus , Lignis. Linnaeus took the diagnostic phrase-name unaltered from Flora suecica, also citing Haller ( 1 7 17) as a synonym. There are no specimens in LINN, and the treatment in Flora suecica indicates that the name included many discordant elements. A species commonly found on Metembyanthemum in the Botanical Garden in Uppsala must have been a nonlichenized fungus or a myxomycete. T h e Haller illustration shows two quite different plants. Figure 3A has a grey, fluffy, round head, and is most possibly a myxomycete (or less likely a Coniocybe), while 3B with a cup-shaped blackish head is a Calicium which, however, does not conform with the Linnaean protologue citing ‘capitula cineria’. Linnaeus must therefore have intended to refer to Figure 3A, but without having studied the material, we find it difficult to say with certainty what species it could represent. With such a mixture of unclear elements, it is easy to understand why the name has not been taken into general use. We entirely agree with Acharius (1816: 267): “Since it is still uncertain what Linnaeus meant by his Mucor sphaerocephalus . . ., it does not serve any purpose to maintain the name sphaerocephalus” (translated from Swedish). We will accordingly propose it for rejection. 370 zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwvut zyxwv zyxw zyxwvu zyxwvuts zyx zyxwvu P. M. JBRGENSEN 8 1 A/.. 110. Tremella Eichenoides L., Species plantarum 2: 1157 (1753). zyxw 4. TREMELLA frondibus erc&is p h i s : rnarginc cri- Litbmriks. fpo Iacinulato. N.j j l t c . 1 0 2 0 . Lichenoides pellucidum, endivio foliis tenuibus crifpk. Dill. Y ~ H J C .143. t . 19. f. 31. Lichen terreitris inembranaceus mollior fufcus. &icb. gcn. 26..t . 38. Mufco fungus terreitris minor fufcus, foliis c Iatitudine crenatis muico ienafccns. MGT$hip, 3. p. 6j z . J 'r. 7. f. 4. Habrtat ia Mufcis, foris ambtds rrd moo:^. Figure 67. Lectotype (at arrow in between the mosses) of Trernefla lichenoides, LINN 1276.9 (that number written by Savage). Pencil annotations at the bottom of the sheet by Sir J. E. Smith. Other inscriptions by Linnaeus. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyxwv zyxw 37 1 Linnaeus adopted the diagnostic phrase-name from Flora suecica, substituting the word-foliis with frondibus. H e also cites three synonyms from works by other botanists. There are four sheets at LINN, three of which are annotated by Linnaeus, two with both localities and Species plantarum numbers. However, it seems unlikely that sheet 1276.4 from India was the basis for the diagnosis in 1753. Sheet 1276.3 marked ‘Suec.’ and inscribed ‘Locus paludibus sub aqua ad Laby’ on the back is possibly responsible for the addition to the habitat description of locis umbrosis in Species plantarum. It represents the first known collection of Leptogium rivulare (Ach.) Mont. (see Jmrgensen &James, 1983: 120-121). The third sheet, 1276.9, has both Flora suecica and Species plantarum numbers in Linnaeus’ handwriting, and is the obvious lectotype. Unfortunately Jmrgensen &James (1983: 116), who then were under the impression that no original Linnaean material existed, incorrectly designated the specimen of the cited Dillenian illustration as the lectotype, instead of the illustration. We therefore supersede this choice by lectotypifying Tremella lichenoides on the lower specimen on sheet 1276.9 (Fig. 67). The lectotype represents Leptogium lichenoides (L.) Zahlbr., the generitype of Leptogium (Ach.) Nyl. zyxwvutsr zyxwvu zyxwvu INDEX OF LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES AND T H E I R TYPES This index records in abbreviated form the results of our study and the conclusions of the discussions. It lists the Linnaean names, their place of publication, their types and currently accepted status, as well as the content of lichen acids for each type specimen. Finally the current name for each species is given. 1. Byssus botryoides L., Species plantarum 2: 1169 ( 1 753). TYPE: Tab. I, fig. 5 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated by Redhead and Kuyper (1987: 321); Fig. 3. Epitype: England, London, Borough of Camden, Hampstead Heath (OXF, herb. Sherard, sheet 1995); selected here. TLC: No lichen substances. = sterile thallus of Omphalina umbellzfera (L.: Fr.) Qukl. 2. Byssus candelaris L., Species plantarum 2: 1169 (1753). TYPE: Tab. I, fig. 4 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype by Ross & Irvine (1967: 185); Fig. 3. Epitype: England, London Borough of Lewisham, Blackheath, on timber (LINN, J. E. Smith herbarium); selected here. TLC: Calcyin. = Chrysothrix candelaris (L.) Laund. 3. Byssus incanus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 169 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. I, fig. 3 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype (called holotype) designated by Laundon (1992: 333); Fig. 3. Epitype: T a b . I, no. 3, in Dillenius herbarium ( O X F ) , selected here. TLC: Divaricatic acid and zeorin. = Leparia k a n a (L.) Ach. 4 . Byssus lacteus L., Species plantarum 2: 1169 ( 1 753), nom. re&. prop. TYPE: Not designated, species non satis nota. 372 zyxwvutsr zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwv zyxw P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. 5. Lichen ampullaceus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 146 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. XXIV, fig. 82 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here; Fig. 4. Epitype: Great Britain, Isles of Scilly, St. Martin’s, Chapel Down, overlooking Stoney Port, 5.5. 1980, P.W. James (BM); selected here. TLC: Atranorin, lobaric and salazinic acids. = Parmelia omphalodes (L.) Ach. 6. Lichen aphtosus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 148 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.175; lectotype by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 5. TLC: Methyl gyrophorate, tenuiorin, phlebic acids A & B, zeorin and unknown terpenoid. = Peltigera aphthosa (L.) Willd. (corrected spelling). 7. Lichen aquaticus L., Species plantarum 2: 1148 (1753). TYPE: Sweden, Vastergotland, Floda, Naas, 16.8. 1919, H. Magnusson (Malme Lich. Suec. Exs. 790, UPS); neotype designated here. TLC: No lichen substances, = Dermatocarpon luridum (With.) Laund. 8. Lichen arcticus L., Species plantarum 2: 1148 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.183; lectotype by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 6. TLC: Nephroarctin, phenarctin and zeorin. = Nephroma arcticum (L.) Torss. 9. Lichen articulatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 156 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. XI, fig. 4 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. Epitype: England, Burnley, T. Willifell (Sherard herbarium, OXF). TLC: Usnic, protocetraric and fumarprotocetraric acids. = Usnea articulata (L.) Hoffm. 10. Lichen atro-albus L., Species plantarum 2: 1141 ( 1 753), nom. rejic. prop. TYPE: Not designated, species non satis notae. 11. Lichen atrovirens L., Speciesplantarum 2: 1141 (1753), nom. rejic. prop. TYPE: Not designated, species non satis notae. 12. Lichen barbatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1155 (1753). TYPE: Tab. XII, fig. 6 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here; Fig. 7. Epitype: Sweden, Vastmanland, Kila par., torpruin SO om Granmuren, 20.7. 1962, I. Nordin (UPS). TLC: Usnic and salazinic acids. = Usnea barbata (L.) Weber zyxwv zyxwvut 13. Lichen Burgessii L., Systema naturae ed. 13: 807 (1774). TYPE: LINN 1273.91, left-hand specimen; lectotype designated here; Fig. 10. TLC: No lichen substances. = Leptogium burgessii (L.) Mont. 14. Lichen byssoides L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissaplantarum: 133 ( 1767). TYPE: Tab. XIV, fig. 5 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. = Onygena equina (Willd.: Fr.) Pers.: Fr. Proposed conserved type: LINN 1273.2. TLC: Constictic, cryptostictic, menegazziaic and stictic acids. = Baeomyces rufus (Huds.) Rebent. zyx zyxwvuts zyxwv LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 373 15. Lichen calcareus L. Species plantarum 2: 1 140 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. XVIII, fig. 8 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. = Mycoblastus afinis (Schaer.) Schauer. Proposed conserved type: Sweden, Gotland, Visby, 26.6. 1918, G. 0. A. Malme (Malme Lich. Suec. Exs. 772, UPS). TLC: No lichen substances. 16. Lichen calicaris L., Species plantarum 2: 1 146 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.115; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 11. TLC: Usnic and protocetraric acids. = Ramalina siliquosa (Huds.) A.L. Sm. Proposed conserved type: Dillenius herbarium, Tab. XXIII, no. 62B (OXF). TLC: Usnic acid and sekikaic acid complex. 17. Lichen candelarius L., Species plantarum 2: I141 (1 753). TYPE: Sweden, Oland, Boda, Mensalvaret, 3.VIIT. 1983, R. Santesson & T. Tonsberg (Lich. sel. exs. Ups. 25, UPS); neotype designated by Santesson (1986). TLC: Anthraquinones. = Xanthoria candelaria (L.) T h . Fr. 18. Lichen caninus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 149 ( 1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.184; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 12. TLC: No lichen substances. = Peltigera praetextata (Florke ex Sommerf.) Zopf Proposed conserved type (by Vitikainen, 1994): Germany: Florke, Deutsche lich. 153 (UPS), TLC: No lichen substances. 19. Lichen caperatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 147 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. XXV, fig. 97 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. Epitype: Tab. XXV, no. 97B in the Dillenius herbarium (OXF); selected here. TLC: Caperatic, pinastric, protocetraric and usnic acids. Parmelia caperata (L.) Ach.). = Flavoparmelia caperata (L.) Hale ( 20. Lichen carpineus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 141 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.18 p.p., lower specimen; lectotype selected here; Fig. 13. TLC: Not performed due to the small size of the specimen, but thallus K + yellow, indicating presence of atranorin (and chloratranorin) . = Lecanora carpinea (L.) Vain. 21. Lichen centrijugus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 142 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.58, upper specimen; lectotype selected here (sheet designated as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 14. TLC: Atranorin, alectoronic, p-alectoronic, a-collatolic (trace), 4-0-methylphysodic (trace), physodic and usnic acids, one unknown and traces of three further substances (det.J. A. Elix.). = Arctoparmedia centrifiga (L.) Hale ( = Parmetia centrzfuga (L.) Ach.). 22. Lichen chalybeiformis L., Species plantarum 2: 1155 (1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.290; lectotype selected by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 15. TLC: Fumarprotocetraric and protocetraric acids in thallus. = Bryoria fuscescens (Gyeln.) Brodo & D. Hawksw. Proposed conserved type: LINN 1273.291. TLC: Fumarprotocetraric acid in soralia only. 374 zyxwvutsr zyxwvut zyxw P. M. JBRGENSEN E T ‘4L. zyxw 23. Lichen chrysophtalmos L., Mantissa plantarum altera: 3 1 1 ( 177 1). TYPE: LINN 1273.89; holotype; Fig. 16. TLC: Anthraquinones. = Teloschistes chrysophthalmus (L.) Th. Fr. (corrected spelling). 24. Lichen ciliaris L., Species plantarum 2: 1144 (1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.92, upper specimen; selected here (sheet designated as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 17. TLC: No lichen substances. = Anaptychia ciliaris (L.) Korb. 25. Lichen cinereus L., Systema nalurae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissa plantarum: 132 ( 1767). TYPE: Mount Belpberg (Schaerer Lich. Helv. Exs. 127, UPS); neotype designated here. TLC: Norstictic, connorstictic, stictic (trace) acids and an unknown (trace) substance. = Aspicilia cinerea (L.) Korb. 26. Lichen coccferus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 151 (1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.215, top specimen; lectotype designated here; Fig. 18. TLC: Porphyrilic, “conporphyrilic”, usnic acids and zeorin. = Cladonia cocczfera (L.) Willd. 27. Lichen corallinus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissa plantarum: 131 (1767). TYPE: LINN 1273.17; neotype designated here. TLC: Thamnolic acid. = Pertusaria corallina (L.) Arnold 28. Lichen corny Yioides L., Species plantarum 2: 1 151 ( 1753), nom. re&. prop. TYPE: LINN 1273.217, central specimen; lectotype designated here; Fig. 19. TLC: Fumarprotocetraric acid. = Cladonia cornuta (L.) Hoffm. s. lat. 29: Lichen cornutus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 152 (1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.223, lower specimen; lectotype designated by Ahti (1993: 73); Fig. 20. TLC: Fumarprotocetraric acid. = Cladonia cornuta (L.) Hoffm. 30. Lichen cristatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 152 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. XIX, fig. 26 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. = Collema tenax (Sw.) Ach. Proposed conserved type: Italy, Trentino, Cortina d’Ampezzo, Pocol, 1948, G. Degelius (UPS). 31. Lichen crocatus L., Mantissa plantarum altera: 3 10 ( 1 77 1). TYPE: LINN 1273.137; holotype; Fig. 2 1. TLC: Calycin, constictic acid, hopane-6a 78,22 triol, methylgyrophorate, pulvinic acid, pulvinic lactone, stictic acid, tenuiorin, unknown terpenoid. = Pseudoyphellaria crocata (L.) Vain. 32. Lichen croceus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 149 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.189; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 22. TLC: Methyl gyrophorate, gyrophoric acid, 6-0-methylaverythrin (solorinic acid), unknown pigment. = Solorina crocea (L.) Ach. zyxwv zy zyxw LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 375 33. Lichen cylindricus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 144 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. XX, fig. 42B in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype selected here; Fig. 23. = Parmotrema perforata (Jacq.) Hale Proposed conserved type: Sweden: in rupibus ad flumen Kamajock prope Qvickjock ( = Kvikkjokk) Lapponiae Lulensis, 1871, P. J. & E. V. M. Hellbom (UPS) TLC: No lichen substances. 34. Lichen deformis L., Species plantarum 2: 1 152 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. XI, fig. 5 in Linnaeus, Flora lapponica, right-hand specimen; lectotype selected here; Fig. 24. Epitype: Sweden, Uppland, Varmdon, Hasseludden, 1915, G. 0. A. Malme (Malme Lich. Suec. Exs. 533, S). TLC: Usnic acid and zeorin. = Cladonia deformis (L.) Hoffm. 35. Lichen deustus L., Species plantarum 2: 1150 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.206; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 25. TLC: Gyrophoric acid and trace of unknown substance. = Umbilicaria Proboscidea sensu Ach. & auctt. Proposed conserved type: Sweden, Narke, Orebro, Hellbom (Rabenh. Exs. 8 12, UPS). TLC: Gyrophoric acid. 36. Lichen digitatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 152 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. XV, fig. 19 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype selected here. = Cladonia Joerkeana (Fr.) Florke. Proposed conserved type: Sweden, Ostrogothia (Ostergotland) , C. Stenhammar (Stenhammar Lich. Suec. Exs. 195, UPS). TLC: Thamnolic acid. 37. Lichen diuaricatus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 7 13 ( 1 167). TYPE: LINN 1273.277, right-hand specimen; lectotype selected here (sheet designated as lectotype by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 26. TLC: Divaricatic acid. = Evernia divaricata (L.) Ach. 38. Lichen ericetorum L., Species plantarum 2: 1141 (1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.19; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 27. TLC. Perlatolic and thamnolic acids. = Icmadophila ericetorum (L.) Zahlbr. zyxw zyxwvu 39. Lichen Fagineus L., Species plantarum 2: 1141 ( 1 753), nom. ryic. prop. TYPE: Not typified, species non satis nota. 40. Lichen~ahlunensisL., Species plantarum 2: 1143 (1753), nom. re&. prop. TYPE: LINN 1273.70; lectotype designated here; Fig. 28. Fumarprotocetraric and protocetraric acids. = Melanelia stygia (L.) Essl. ( = Parmelia stygia (L.) Ach.) TLC: 41. Lichen farinaceus L., Species plantarum 2: 1146 (1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.1 10, lower specimen; lectotype designated by Hawksworth (1969: 255) (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 29. TLC: Protocetraric and usnic acids. = Ramalina farinacea (L.) Ach. 42. Lichen fascicularis L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 71 1; Mantissa plantarum: 133 (1 767). 376 zyxwvu zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqpon zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. TYPE: LINN 1273.141; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 30. TLC: No lichen substances. = Collema fasciculare (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg. zyxwvu 43. Lichenjimbriatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1152 (1753). TYPE: Tab. XIV, fig. 8 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated by Ahti (1993: 77). Epitype: Tab. XIV, no. 8, first specimen to the left in the lower row, in the Dillenius herbarium (OXF); selected here. TLC: Fumarprotocetraric acid. = Cladonia jimbriata (L.) Fr. 44. Lichenjoridus L., Species plantarum 2: 1156 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.300, lower specimen; lectotype selected by Clerc (1984: 341) (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 31. TLC: Alectorialic (in apothecia) , bourgeanic, hypothamnolic, thamnolic and usnic acids. = Usneajorida (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg. 45. Lichen fragilis L., Species plantarum 2: 1 156 (1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.261, upper specimen; lectotype designated by Wedin (1993: 216) (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 32. TLC: Hypothamnolic acid and sphaerophorin. = Sphaerophorus fragilis (L.) Pers. 46. Lichen fraxineus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 146 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.121, specimen B; lectotype designated by Krog & James (1977: 33) (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 33. TLC: Usnic acid. = Ramalina fraxinea (L.) Ach. 47. Lichen fuczformis L., Species plantarum 2: 1147 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. XXII, fig. 61 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. Epitype: Tab. XXII, no. 61, central specimen in the Dillenius herbarium (OXF); selected here. TLC: Erythrin, lepraric and roccellic acids. = Roccella fucformis (L.) DC. 48. Lichen furfuraceus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 146 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.107, central specimen; lectotype designated by Hawksworth & Chapman (1971: 51) (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 34. TLC: Atranorin, chloratranorin, a-collatolic (trace), alectoronic (trace), olivetoric (trace), 2-O-methylphysodic, oxyphysodic and physodic acids, and traces of three unknown substances (det. J. A. Elix). = Pseudevernia furfuracea (L.) Zopf 49. Lichen fusco-ater L., Species plantarum 2: 1140 (1 753). TYPE: Sweden, Uppland, Uppsala, Viirdsatra, NE-SE of the mouth of the river Hiigaiia, 17.5. 1964. R. Santesson 16299 (UPS); neotype designated by Hertel (1977: 244). TLC: Gyrophoric acid. = Lecidea fuscoatra (L.) Ach. 50. Lichen gelidus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissa plantarum: 133 ( 1767). TYPE: Iceland, Kjosarsysla, Reykir, 29.6. 1937, B. Lynge (0);neotype designated here in accordance with Lamb (1947: 202). TLC: Gyrophoric and lecanoric (trace) acids. = Placopsis gelida (L.) Lindsay zyx zyxwvuts zyxwvut LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 377 51. Lichen geographicus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 140 (1 753). TYPE: Tab. X V III, fig. 5 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated by Hawksworth & Sowter (1969: 58). Epitype: Tab. XVIII, no. 5 in Dillenius herbarium ( O X Fj; designated here. TLC: Psoromic, 2-0-demethylpsoromic and rhizocarpic acids. = Rhizocarpon geographicum (L.) DC. 52. Lichen glaucus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 148 ( 1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273. 139, lower specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 35. TLC: Atranorin and caperatic acid. = Platismatia glauca (L.) Culb. & C. Culb. zyxwv 53. Lichen globzferus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 713; Mantissa plantarum: 133 (1 767). TYPE: LINN 1273.251; lectotype by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 36. TLC: Sphaerophorin and squamatic acid (trace). = Sphaerophorus globosus (Huds.) Vain. 54. Lichen gracilis L., Species plantarum 2: 1 152 ( 1 753). TYPE: Tab. XIV, fig. 13 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated by Ahti (1993: 79). Epitype: Tab. XIV, no. 13C in Dillenius herbarium (OXF); selected here. TLC: Fumarprotocetraric acid. = Cladonia gracilis L. j Willd. 55. Lichen hirtus L., Species plantarum 2: 1155 ( 1 753). TYPE: Tab. X III, fig. 12, in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here; Fig. 37, TLC: Usnic and salazinic acids. = Usnea Cornuta Korb. Proposed conserved type: Sweden (Fries Lich. Suec. Exs. 150, UPS). TLC: Usnic acid and murolic acid complex. 56. Lichen islandicus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 145 ( 1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.97, lower specimen; lectotype designated by Karnefelt (1979: 98) (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 38. TLC: Fumarprotocetraric, lichesterinic and protolichesterinic acids. = Cetraria islandica (L.) Ach. zyxwvuts 57. Lichen islandicus L. var. tenuissimus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 145 (1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.100; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 39. TLC: Lichesterinic and protolichesterinic acids. = Coelocaulon aculeatum (Schreb.) Link 58. Lichenjubatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 155 ( 1 753), nom. re&. TYPE: LINN 1273.281, left hand specimen; lectotype designated by Hawksworth (1970: 238); Fig. 40. TLC: No lichen substances. = Bryoria cf. fremontii (Tuck.) Brodo & D. Hawksw. without soralia. 59. Lichen juniperinus L., Species plantarum 2: 1147 ( 1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.128, upper right-hand specimen; lectotype designated by Mattsson (1994) (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 41. TLC: Pinastrinic, usnic, vulpinic acids and a range of terpenoids. = Vulpicida tubulosa (Schaer.) Mattsson & M.J. Lai ( = Cetraria alvarensis (Wahlenb.) Vain.). 378 zyxwvutsr zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RCENSEN E T AL. Proposed conserved type (by Mattsson 1994): Sweden, Harjedalen, Storsjo, Flatruet, 400 m W of Falkdlen, 2.8. 1991, J.-E. Mattson 2340 (LD). TLC: Pinastrinic, usnic, vulpinic acids and a range of terpenoids. zyxwvu 60. Lichen lacteus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissa plantarum: 132 (1767). TYPE: Sweden, Vastergotland, Mularp, Stommen, 6.8. 1922, E.P. Vrang (Malme Lich. Suec. Exs. 848, UPS); neotype designated here. TLC: Lecanoric and variolaric acids. = Pertusaria lactea (L.) Arnold 61. Lichen lanatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 155 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.284; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 42. TLC: No lichen substances. = Ephebe lanata (L.) Vain. 62. Lichen leucomels L., Species plantarum ed. 2, 2: 1613 (1763). TYPE: LINN 1273.109; holotype; Fig. 43. TLC: Aztranorin, zeorin, salazinic, consalazinic acids and two unknown terpenes. = Heterodermia leucomelaena (L.) Poelt (corrected spelling) 63. Lichen miniatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 149 (1753). TYPE: Tab. XXX, fig. 127 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. Epitype: Tab. X X X , no. 127B in the Dillenius herbarium (OXF); designated here. TLC: No lichen substances. = Dermatocarbon miniatum (L.) Mann 64. Lichen niualis L., Speciesplan~arum2: 1145 (1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.101, lower left specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type b y Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 44. TLC: Usnic, ?lichesterinic and protolichesterinic acid. = Cetraria nivalis (L.) Ach. zy 65. Lichen olivaceus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 143 ( 1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.66; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 45. TLC: Gyrophoric, stenosporic acids and TE1 or TE2. = Neofuscelia pulla (Ach.) Essl. ( = Parmelia pulla Ach.) Proposed conserved type: Sweden, Harjedalen, Fjellnas, ad corticem Betularum, E. Vrang (Krypt. Exs. Vind. 3063, UPS). TLC: Fumarprotocetraric acid. 66.Lichen omphalodes L., Species plantarum 2: 1143 (1753). TYPE: Tab. XXIV, fig. 80A in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. Epitype: Tab. XXIV, no. 80 in the Dillenius herbarium (OXF); selected here. TLC: Atranorin, lobaric and salazinic acids. = Parmelia omphalodes (L.) Ach. zyxwvu 67. Lichen pallescens L., Species plantarum 2: 1 142 (1 753). TYPE: Tab. XVIII, fig. 17, the fertile element in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. = Lecanora dispersa (Pers.) Sommerf. s. 1. Proposed conserved type: Sweden, Harjedalen, Ramundberget, the slope NE of Kvarbackstjarn, c. 800 m, 27.6. 1973, R. Santesson 24384 (UPS). TLC: Gyrophoric (apothecia), variolaric acids. zyx zyxwvutsr zy LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 379 68. Lichen parellus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 7 10; Mantissa plantarum: 132 ( 1767). TYPE: Tab. X V III, fig. 10 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. Epitype: Tab. XVIII, no. 10, lower central specimen in the Dillenius herbarium (OXF); designated here. TLC: Gyrophoric, variolaric acids and one unknown. = Ochrolechia parella (L.) Massal. 69. Lichen parielinus L., Species plantarum 2: 1143 (1753). TYPE: Tab. XXIV, fig. 76A; lectotype designated here. Epitype: Tab. XXIV, no. 76A in the Dillenius herbarium (OXF);selected here. TLC: Anthraquinones. = Xanthoria parietina (L.) Th. Fr. 70. Lichen paschalis L., Species plantarum 2: 1153 ( 1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.259, lower specimen; lectotype designated by Lamb (1977: 200); Fig. 46. TLC: Atranorin and lobaric acid. = Stereocaulon paschale (L.) Hoffm. 71. Lichen pertusus L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissa plantarum: 131 ( 1767)) nom. iEleg. TYPE: As for Lichen uerrucosus Huds.; Tab. XVIII, fig. 9, the pertusa-element, in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. Epitype: Tab. XVIII, no. 9, the upper central specimen; designated here. TLC: Coronaton, constictic, stictic acids, and traces of substances in the stictic acid complex. = Pertusaria pertusa (Weigel) Tuck. 72. Lichen physodes L., Species plantarum 2: 1 144 ( 1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.77, lower specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet designated by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 47. TLC: Atranorin, physodic, physodalic and protocetraric acids. = Hypogymnia physodes (L.) Nyl. 73. Lichen plicatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1154 ( 1 753)) nom. rejic. prop. TYPE: Tab. XI, fig. 1 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. = Usnea ceratina Ach. 74. Lichen polyphyllus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 150 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. X X X , fig. 129 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. Epitype: Tab. X X X , no. 129B in Dillenius herbarium (OXF). TLC: Gyrophoric acid. = Umbilicaria polyphylla (L.) Baumg. 75. Lichen polyrhixos, L., Species plantarum 2: 1 151 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. X X X , fig. 130 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. Epitype: Tab. X X X , no. 129 (incorrectly marked so), largest specimen, in Dillenius herbarium (OXF). TLC: Gyrophoric acid. = Umbilicaria po[yrhixa (L.) Fr. 76. Lichen proboscideus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 150 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.204; holotype; Fig. 48. TLC: No lichen substances. = Umbilicaria cylindrica (L.) Delise ex Duby. Proposed conserved type: Sweden, Uppland, Boo, Varmdo, Skepparholmen, 1906, G. 0. A. Malme (Malme Lich. Suec. Exs. 56, UPS). TLC: Gyrophoric and lecanoric (trace) acids. 380 zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RCENSEN E T AL. zy 77. Lichen prunastri L., Species plantarum 2: 1 147 (1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.125, central specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 49. TLC: Usnic and evernic acids. = Evernia prunastri (L.) Ach. 78. Lichen pubescens L., Species plantarum 2: 1 155 (1 753). TYPE: Tab. XIII, fig. 9 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype selected here. Epitype: LINN 1273.286; selected here. TLC: No lichen substances. = Pseudephebe pubescens (L.) M. Choisy. 79. Lichen pulmonarius L., Species plantarum 2: 1 145 ( 1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.103, lower specimen; lectotype designated by Yoshimura & Hawksworth (1970: 36); Fig. 50. TLC: Stictic, constictic, cryptostictic and norstictic acids. = Lobarza pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm. 80. Lichen pustulatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1150 (1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.201, upper specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 51. TLC: Gyrophoric and lecanoric (trace) acids. = Lasallia pustulata (L.) Mtrat zyx 81. Lichen pyxidatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 151 (1 753). TYPE: Tab. 41, fig. 1 L, central specimen in Michelius, Nova plantarum genera; lectotype selected here; Fig. 52. Epitype: corresponding specimen in the Michelian herbarium (FI); selected here. TLC: Fumarprotocetraric and protocetraric acids. = Cladonia pyxidata (L.) Hoffm. 82. Lichen rangzferinus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 153 ( 1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.240; lectotype designated by Nourish & Oliver (1974: 259); Fig. 53. TLC: Atranorin, fumarprotocetraric acid. = Cladonia rangfeerina (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg. ( = Cladina rangiferina (L.) Nyl.) 83. Lichen rangiferinus L. var. atpestris L., Species plantarum 2: 1 153 ( 1753). TYPE: Tab. XVI, fig. 29 F in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated by Pouzar & Vtzda (1971: 195). Epitype: Tab. XVI, no. 29 F in Dillenius, herbarium (OXF); selected here. TLC: Usnic and perlatolic (trace) acids. = Cladonia stellaris (Opiz) Pouzar & Vtzda 84. Lichen rangiferinus L. var. sylvaticus L., Species plantarum 1 153 ( 1753), nom. re&. Prop, TYPE: Tab. XVI, fig. 30 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype selected here. = Cladonia portentosa (Dufour) Coem. 85. Lichen resupinatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 148 (1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.169; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 54. TLC: No lichen substances. = Jhiephrorna resupinaturn (L.) Ach. 86. Lichen Roccella L., Species plantarum 2: 1 154 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.263, lower specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 55. TLC: Lecanoric acid. = Roccella patellata Stirt. ( = R. tuberculosa var. uincentina Vain.) zy zyx zyxwvut LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 38 I 87. Lichen rugosum L., Species plantarum 2: 1140 ( 1 753). TYPE: Tab. X V III, fig. 2 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated by Hawksworth & Punithalingam (1973: 503). Epitype: Tab. XVIII, no. 2, top right specimen in Dillenius herbarium (OXF); selected here. = Ascodichaena rugosa (Fr.) Butin 88. Lichen rupicola L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 709; Mantissa plantarum: 132 ( 1767). TYPE: Sweden, Dalarna, Grangarde, Hallon, Lake Ramen, W-side of island, March 1959, R. Santesson 1737a (BM); neotype designated by Leuckert & Poelt (1989: 149). TLC: Atranorin, roccellic acid and sordidon (with eugenitol). = Lecanora rupicola (L.) Zahlbr. 89. Lichen saccatus L., Flora suecica ed. 2: 419 (1755). TYPE: Norvegia, Tych. Holm (LINN 1273.197), lower specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type by Almborn, 1966: 104); Fig. 56. TLC: No lichen substances. = Solorina saccata (L.) Ach. 90. Lichen sanguinarium L., Species plantarum 2: 1140 (1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.10; lectotype designated here, Fig. 57. TLC: Atranorin, caperatic and rhodocladonic acids. = Mycoblastus sanguinarius (L.) Norm. 91. Lichen saxatilis L., Species plantarum 2: 1142 (1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.62; second specimen from bottom; lectotype designated by Galloway and Elix (1983: 405) (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 58. TLC: Atranorin, chloratranorin, lobaric (trace) and salazinic acids. = Parmelia saxatilis (L.) Ach. 92. Lichen scriptus L., Species plantarum 2: 1140 ( 1 753). TYPE: Tab. XVIII, fig. 1, lower specimen in Dillenius, Historia muscorum, lectotype; selected here. Epitype: Sweden, Sodermanland, Jernbol, Bjorkvid, 1895, G. 0. A. Malme (Malme Lich. Suec. Exs. 47, UPS); selected here. TLC: No lichen substances. = Graphis scripta (L.) Ach. 93. Lichen stellaris L., Species plantarum 2: 1144 ( 1 753). TYPE: LINN 1273.81, upper left-hand specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 59. TLC: Atranorin (in cortex). = Physcia stellaris (L.) Nyl. 94. Lichen stygius L., Species plantarum 2: 1 143 (1 753). TYPE: Sweden, Uppland, Varmdo, Hasseludden, Aug. 1907, G. 0. A. Malme. (Malme Lich. Suec. Exs. 66, UPS); neotype selected here. TLC: Fumarprotocetraric, norstictic and connorstictic acids. = Melanelia stygia (L.) Essl. 95. Lichen subfuscus L., Species plantarum 2: 1142 (1753), nom. reic. TYPE: Tab. XVIII, fig. 16 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated by Brodo & Vitikainen (1984: 294). = Lecanora cf. horiza (Ach.) Lindsay 96. Lichen subulatus L., Species plantarum 2: 1153 ( 1 753). TYPE: Tab. 809, fig. 1 in Tabernaemontanus, Icones plantarum; lectotype 382 zyxwvutsrqp zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvuts P. M. J0RCENSEN E T AL. designated here; Fig. 60. Epitype: LINN 1273. 249. TLC: Fumarprotocetraric acid. = Cladonia subulata (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg. 97. Lichen tartareus L., Species plantarum 2: 1141 (1753). TYPE: Tab. XVIII, fig. 12 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype designated here. = Lecanora sp. Proposed conserved type: Scotland, Burgess no. 1 (LINN 1273.31). TLC: Gyrophoric and lecanoric (trace) acids. 98. Lichen uncialis L., Species plantarum 2: 1151 (1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.246, lower specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 61. TLC: Usnic and barbatic acids. = Cladonia amaurocraea (Florke) Schaer. Proposed conserved type: Sweden, Dalarna, Stora Kopparberg, Rotneby, C. Stenhammar (Stenhammar Lich. Suec. Exs. 210, UPS). TLC: Usnic and squamatic (trace) acids. 99. Lichen upsaliensis L., Species plantarum 2: 1142 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.44, upper right specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 63. TLC: Variolaric acid and unidentified fatty acids. = Ochrolechia upsaliensis (L.) Massal. 100. Lichen usnea L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 2: 713; Mantissa plantarum: 131 (1767). TYPE: Martinique, LINN 1273.278; lectotype designated by Howe (1912: 201); Fig. 62. TLC: Usnic and divaricatic acids. = Ramalina usnea (L.) R . Howe 101. Lichen velleus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 150 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.199 right hand specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 64. TLC: Gyrophoric and lecanoric (trace) acids. = Umbilicaria vellea (L.) Ach. 102. Lichen venoms L., Species plantarum 2: 1 148 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.172, central specimen; lectotype designated by Vitikainen (pers. comm.). Fig. 65. TLC: Tenuiorin, methyl gyrophorate, gyrophoric acid (trace), phlebic acids A & B and 6 unidentified terpenoids (see White &James, 1987). = Pettigera uenosa (L.) Hoffm. 103. Lichen uentosus L., Species plantarum 2: 1 141 ( 1753). TYPE: Ehrhart exs. 30 (LINN 1273.15); neotype designated here. TLC: Usnic, divaricatic, thamnolic and trace of gyrophoric and ?psoromic acids, ventosin. = Ophioparma ventosa (L.) Norm. ( = Haematomma ventosum (L.) Massal.). 104. Lichen vernalis L., Systema naturae ed. 12, 3: 234 (1768). TYPE: Tab. XVIII, fig. 4 in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype selected here. = Bacidia rubella (Hoffm.) Massal. Proposed conserved type: Sweden (Fries Lich. Suec. Exs. 224, UPS).. TLC: No lichen substances. zyxwv zyx zyxw LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 383 105. Lichen vulpinus L., Species pianlarum 2: 1 155 ( 1753). TYPE: LINN 1273.298, upper left specimen; lectotype designated here (sheet selected as type by Howe, 1912: 201); Fig. 66. TLC: Atranorin (trace), vulpinic acid. = Letharia vulpina (L.) Hue zyxwvut 106. Mucor fulvus L., Species plantarum 2: 1185 ( 1 753), nom. rejic. prop. TYPE: Not designated, species non satis nota. 107. Mucor furfuraceus L., Species plantarum 2: 1185 (1753). TYPE: Sweden, Uppland, Vange parish, Fiby urskog, on upturned roots (‘rotvalta’), 4.8. 1962, R. Santesson 14432 (UPS); neotype designated here. TLC: Vulpinic and pulvinic acids, pulvinic acid dilactone. = Chaenothecafurfuracea ( L . ) Tibell 108. Mucor lichenoides L., Species plantarum 2: 1 185 ( 1 753), nom. rejic. prop. TYPE: Tab. X I V , fig. 3 lower specimen in Dillenius, Historia muscorum; lectotype selected here. = Calicium salicinum Pers. 109. Mucor sphaerocephalus L., Species plantarum 2: 1185 ( 1753), nom. rejic. prop. TYPE: Not designated, species non satis nota. 110. Tremella lichenoides L., Species plantarum 2: 1157 (1753). TYPE: LINN 1276.9, lower specimen; lectotype selected here; Fig. 67. TLC: No lichen substances. = Leptogium lichenoides (L.) Zahlbr. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Linnean Society of London for access to the Linnaean collections, library and manuscripts and for giving permission to take samples for TLC. We are particularly grateful to Mrs Gina Douglas for her continuous support and valuable assistance during our work at the Linnean Society. We are further indebted to the staff of the Fielding-Druce herbarium (OXF), in particular to Miss S. Marner, for help given during our visits to the Dillenius herbarium, and for providing photographs of Dillenian specimens. We are much obliged to M r Phil Hurst, BM, London who skilfully and expediently took the many photographs of Linnaean type specimens. T h e senior author’s stay in England was made possible by a grant from NAVF (The Norwegian Research Council) and support from the University of Bergen, for which he is most grateful. C.E.J.’s work was assisted by a NATO research grant. We are also obliged to Prof, G. Moggi for kindly providing us with access to the Michelius herbarium (FI) and to Prof. G. L6pez Gonzhlez, Madrid for information on Loefling’s Spanish collections. Some preliminary gathering of information was undertaken by Miss Melanie Hyde with support of a Vacation Studentship from the Natural History Museum, London. This work would not have been possible without the assistance of a number of specialists. We above all want to thank Prof. R . Santesson for discussions on several aspects of Linnaean lichens, and particularly for his efforts to locate good neotypes from Sweden. We are further indebted to two referees who made valuable comments, as well as to the following experts: Prof. T. Ahti, Helsinki 384 zyxwvutsrqpon zyxwvut zy P. M. J 0 R G E N S E N E T AL. (Cladonia), Prof. I. M. Brodo, Ottawa (Lecanora and Ochrolechia), Dr B. J. Coppins, Edinburgh (various crustose taxa), Prof. J. A. Elix, Canberra (chemistry), Dr S. Ekman, Lund (Biatora vernalis), Prof. D. L. Hawksworth, Egham (parasites), Dr J.-E. Mattsson, Lund (VuQ~icida),Dr 0. Vitikainen, Helsinki (Lecanora and Peltigera) and Dr M. Wedin, Uppsala (S’liaerophorus). zyxwvutsr zyxwvuts zyxwvuts zyxwv REFERENCES Acharius E. 1799. Lichenographiae suecicae prodromus. Linkoping. Acharius E. 1816. Afhandling om d e cryptogamiske vexter, som komma under namn af Caliciodea. Andra stycket. Kungliga Vetenskapsakademzens Handlingar 1816 260-291. Afzelius A. 1788. Anmarkningar vid svenska vaxternas kannedom. Andra stycket. Kungliga Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 1788 137-156. Ahti T. 1961. Taxonomic studies on reindeer lichens (Cladonia, subgenus Cladina). Annales Botanici Fennici Societas /Zbologicae-Botanicae “Vanamo” 32, 1: 1-160. Ahti T. 1966. Parmelia oliuacea and the allied non-isidiate and non-sorediate corticolous lichens in the northern hemisphere. Acta Botanica Fennica 70: 1-68. Ahti T. 1978. Nomenclature and taxonomic remarks on European species of Cladonia. Annales Botanici Fennici 15: 7-14. Ahti T. 1980. Taxonomic revision of Cladonia gracilis and its allies. Annales Botanici Fennici 17: 195-243. Ahti T. 1993. Names in current use in the Cladoniaceae (lichenforming ascomycetes) in the ranks of genus to variety. Regnum oegetabile 128: 58-106. Ahti T, Stenroos S. 1986. A revision of Cladonia sect. Cocciferae in the Venezuelan Andes. Annales Botanici Fennici 23: 229-238. Almborn 0. 1966. Revision of some lichen genera in southern Africa I. Botaniska Notiser 119: 70-1 12. Almborn 0. 1989. Revision of thc lichen genus Teloschistes in central and southern Africa. Nordic Journal of Botany 8: 521-537. Barrelier C. 1714. Plantae per Galliam Bauhin C. 1623. Theatri botanici. Basel. Bauhin C, Cherler JH.1650-1651. Historia plantarum uniuersalis. Embrun. Boccone P. 1697. Museo di Piante rare della Sicilia, Malta, Corsica, Italia, Piemonte e Germania. Venezia. Borrich 0. 1673. Muscus Catharticus. Ada Haffn. 1671-1672: 126-127. Brodo IM. 1984. The North American species of the Lecanora subfusca group. Beihefle zur Noua Hedwigia 79: 63-185. Brodo IM. 1990. Studies in the lichen genus Ochrolechia 2. Corticolous species of North America. Canadian Journal of Botany 69: 733-772. Brodo IM, Hawksworth DL. 1977. Alecloria and allied genera in North America. Opera Botanica 42: 1-164. Brodo IM, Vitikainen, 0. 1984. T h e typification of Lecanora subfusca ( L . ) Ach., its varieties, and some of its related taxa published beforc 1850. Mycotaxon 21: 281-282. Buxbaum JC. 1728-40. Plantarum minus cognitarum. St. Petersburg. Colonna F. 1616. Minus cognitarum. . . stirpium ekfrasis. Roma. Crombie JM. 1880. O n the lichens of Dillenius’s “Historia muscorum” as illustrated by his herbarium. Journal of the Linnean Society, Botany 17: 553-58 1. Clerc P. 1984. Contribution a la rtvision de la systematique des Usntes (Ascomycotina, Usnea) d’Europe. I , UsneaJlorida (L.) Wigg. emend. Clerc. Cryptogamie, Bryologze & Lichenologie 5: 333-360. Culberson WL, Culberson CF. 1968. The lichen genera Cetrelia and Platismatia (Parmeliaceae) in the New World. Contributions of the U.S. National Herbarium 34: 449-558. Degelius G. 1954. The lichen genus Collema in Europe. $vmbolae Botanicae Upsalienses 13, 2: 1-499. Dillenius JJ. 1742. Historia m u ~ o r u m Oxford. . Dodoens R. 1583. Stirpium Historiae Pemptades sex. Antwerpen. Drouet F, Daily WA. 1956. Revision of the coccoid Myxophyceae. Butler University Botanical Studies 12: 1-128. Fries TM 1861. Anteckningar rorande en i Paris befintlig Linneansk herbarium. Ofuersikter i Kungliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Farhandlingar 18: 255-272. Fuchs L. 1542. De Historia Stirpium commentarii. Basel. Galloway D, Elir JA. 1983. T h e lichen genera Parmelia Ach. and Punctelia Krog in Australasia. N e w zealand Journal of Botany 21: 397-420. Galloway D, James PW. 1980. Nomenclatural notes on Pseudoqphellaria in New Zealand. The Lichenologist 12: zyx 291-303. Gilbert 0. 1975. Distribution maps of lichens in Britain. Maps 19-22. The Lichenologist 7: 181-192. Greuter W, Barrie FRYBurdet HM, Chaloner WG, Demoulin V, Hawksworth DL, Jergensen PM, Nicolson DH, Silva PC, Trehane P, McNeill J. 1994. International Code f o r Botanical ~Vomenclature.Regnum uegetabile 131: Koeltz. Konigstein. Gronovius JF. 1743. Flora uirginica, pars 2. Leiden. Guettard JE. 1747. Observations sur les Plantes. Paris. zyxwvuts zyxwvuts zyxwvutsrq zyxwvut LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 385 Hale ME. 1976. A monograph of the lichen genus Pseudoparmelia Lynge. Smithsonian Contributions to Botany 2 6 1-62. Hale ME. 1987. A monograph of the lichen genus Parmelia Acharins sensu stricto (Ascomycetina: Parmeliaceae) . Srnithsonian Contributions to Botany 66: 1-54, Haller A von. 1742. Enumeratio methodica Stirpium Heluetiae indigenarum. GBttingen. Hawksworth DL. 1969. T h e typification of Lichen farinaceus L. The Bryologist 72: 254-255. Hawksworth DL. 1970. Chemical and nomenclatural notes on Alectoria (Lichenes) 11. Taxon 19: 237-243. Hawksworth DL. 1971. Regional studies in Alectoria (Lichenes). I. ‘The Central and South African species. Botaniska Notiser 124: 122-127. Hawksworth DL. 1972. Regional studies in Alectoria (Lichenes) 11. T h e British species. The Lichenologist 5: 181-26 1. Hawksworth DL, Chapman DS. 1971. Pseudeuernia,fu~furacea (L.) Zopf and its chemical races in the British Isles. T h e Lichenologist 4: 51-58. Hawksworth DL, James PW, Coppins BJ. 1980. Checklist of British lichen-forming, lichenicolous and allied fungi. The Lichenologist 12: 1-1 1.5. Hawksworth DL, Punithalingam T. 1973. Typification and nomenclature of Dichaena Fr., Heterographa Fee, Polymorphum Chev., Psilopora Rabenh. and Psilopsorina Died. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 60: 501-509. Hawksworth DL, Sherwood M. 1981. Proposal for nomina conservanda and rejicienda for ascomycetes (lichenized and non-lichenized). Taxon 30: 338-348. Hawksworth DL, Sowter FA. 1969. Leicestershire and Rutland lichens 1950-1969. Transactions of Leicestershire Literary and Philosophical Sociey 63: 50-6 1. Hertel H. 1977. Gesteinsbewolinende Arten der Sammelgattung Lecideu (Lichenes) aus Zentral-, Ost- und Sudasien. Khumbu Hzmal, Ergebnisse der ~orschungsunternehmen in Nepal und Himalaya 6: 145-378. Hoffmann GF. 1789. Descriptio et adumbratio plantae lichenosae. Gottingen. Howe RHjr. 1910a. A manual of the genus Usnea as reprcsentcd in North and Middle America, north of the 15th parallel. Bulletin o f t h e Torrty Rotanical Club 37: 1-18. Howe R H jr. 1910b. T h e genus Usnea and its Linnaean nomenrlature. Bullelin o f t h e Torrty Botanical Club 37: 605-609. Howe RH jr. 1911. The genus Euernia as represented in North and Middle America. Botanical Gazette 51: 45 1-442. Howe RHjr. 1912. T h c lichens of the Linnean Herbarium with remarks on Acharian material. Bulletin of the Torrty Botanical Club 39: 199-203. Howe RH 1913a. Lichens of Mount Katahdin, Maine. The Rryologist 16: 33-36. Howe RH jr. 1913b. North American species of the genus Ramalina, 11. The Bryologist 16: 81-89. Howe R H jr. 1914a. North American species of the genus Ramalina. 111, I V and V I I I . The Bryologist 17: 1-7, 17-24, 81-87. Howe RH jr. 1914b. T h e nomenclature of the genus U.snea. Bulletin q f t h e Torrty Botanical Club 41: 373-379. Hudson W. 1762. Flora anglica. London. Imshaug HA. 1972a. ‘Typification of Lichen ericetorum and Baeomyces. Journal OJ the Huttori Botanical Laboratory 35: 299-302. Imshaug HA. 197213. Typification of Ramalina usnea (L.) Howe. The Lzchenolo~gist5: 317-318. Jackson BD. 1907. On a manuscript list of the Linnaean Herbarium in the handwriting of Carl van Linnl., presumably compiled in the year 1755. Proceedings of the Linnean Sociep London 1906-1907: 89-126. James PW, Rose F. 1973. Anaptychia ciliaris in Distribution maps of lichens. The Lichenologist 5: 467-469. James PW, White J. 1987. Studies on the genus Nefihroma I. T h e European and Macaronesian species. The Lichenologist 19: 2 15-268. Jergensen PM, James PW. 1983. Studies in some Leptogium species of western Europe. The I,zchmologist 15: 109-1 25. Jergensen PM, James PW, Jar& CE. in press. Proposals to reject or to conserve 26 Linnaean species names of lichenized ascomycetes. Taxon. Jergensen PM, Ryman S. 1989. Proposal to conserve Omphalina Qutlet over Phytoconis Bory and BoQdina BrCbisson (Basidiomycetes). Taxon 38: 305-308. Jergensen PM, Ryman S. 1994. T h e typification of Omphalina umbellifra (L.: Fr.) Qutlet. Taxon 43: 253-255. Kamefelt I. 1979. T h e brown fruticose species of Cetraria. Opera Botanica 46: 1-150. Kamefelt I. 1986. T h e genera Bryocaulon, Coelocaulon and Cornicularia, and formerly associated taxa. opera Botanica 86: 1-90. Korf RP. 1986. Report of the Committee for Fungi and Lichens. Taxon 35: 552-556. Krog H.1980. O n Bryoria cha!ybeijormis and some related species. The Lichenologist 12: 243-245. Krog H, James PW. 1977. T h e genus Ramalina in Fennoscandia and the British Isles. Norwegian Journal of Botany 24: 1543. Krog H, Bsthagen H, Tensberg T. 1980. Laufiora, norske husk og bladlau. Universitetsforlaget. zyxwvuts zyxw zyxwvutsr zyx Oslo-Bergen-Tromn. Lamb IM.1937. A monograph of the lichen genus Placopsis Nyl. Lilloa 13: 151-288. Lamb IM. 1977. A conspectus of the lichen genus Stereocaulon (Schreb.) Hoffm. Journal of the Hattorz Botanical Laboratory 43: 191-355. 386 zyxwvut zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvu P. M.J 0 R G E N S E N E T A L . JR. 1963. The taxonomy of sterile crustaceous lichens in the British Isles. 2. Corticolous and lignicolous species. The Lichenologist 2: I0 1- 15 1. Laundon JR. 1981. T h e species of Chrysothrix. T h e Lichenologist 13: 101-121. Laundon JR. 1984a. Proposal to emend Cladonia Hill ex Browne 1756, nom. cons. and delete Cladona Adanson 1763, nom. rej. (Ascomycetes: Lecanorales). Taxon 33: 109-1 12. Laundon JR. 1984b. ‘The typification of Withering’s neglected lichens. The Lichenologist 16: 21 1-239. Laundon JR 1992. Lepraria in T h e British Isles. The Lichenologist 24: 315-350. Leuckert C, Poelt J. 1989. Studien iiber die Lecanora rupicola-Gruppe in Europa. Noua Hedwigia 49: 121-167. Linnaeus C. 1737. Flora lapponica. Amsterdam. Linnaeus C. 1745a. Olandska och Gothlandska Resa. Stockholm & Uppsala. Linnaeus C. 17458. Flora suecica ed. 1. Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1747. Wastgota Resa. Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1749. Materia medica. Stockho!m. Linnaeus C. 1750. Dissertatio hotanica sistens Splachnum . . . Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1751a. Amoenitates academiae. Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1751b. Skdnska Resa. Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1753. Species plantarum. ed. 1. Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1755. Flora suecica. ed. 2. Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1759. Systema naturae ed. 10, 2. Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1762-63. Species plantarum. ed. 2. Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1767. Systema naturae ed. 12, 2 (with Mantissa). Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1771. Mantissa plantarum altera. Stockholm. Linnaeus C. 1774. Systema uegetahilium ed. 13. Gottingen & Gotha. Loeselius J. 1703. Flora prns5ica. Konigsberg. Maas Geesteranus RA. 1947. Revision of the lichens of the Netherlands. I. Parmeliaceae. Blumea 6,l: 1-199. Magnol P. 1697. Hortus regius monspeliensis. Montpellier. Magnusson AH. 1939. Studies in species of Lecanora, mainly the Aspicilia gibbosa group. Knngliga suenska Vetenskapsakademiens handlingar 3. serien 17, 5: 1-150. Mattioli PA. 1586. De Plantis Epitome. Frankfurt am Main. Mattsson J-E. in press. Proposal to ronservc Lichen juniperinus L. with a conserved type. Taxon. Mentzler K. 1682. Index Nominum Plantarum . . . adjzctus est Pugillus Plantarum rariorum. Berlin. Michelius PA. 1729. Noua genera plantarum. Firenze. Moberg R. 1986. Lichenes selecti exsiccati upJaliensis, fasc. 1. Thunbergia 2 I - X X . Morison R. 1699. Plantarum Historia Universalis Oxoniensis, pars tertia. Oxford. Motyka J. 193638. Lichenum generis Usnea studium monographicnm. Lwow. Motyka J . 1977. De nonnulis speciebus et de systemate generis Lecanora Ach. (Lichenes). Annales Uniuiuersitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sect. C, 32: 125-1 39. Nicolson DH. 1993. General Committee Report 5. Taxon 42: 431434. Nourish R., Oliver RWA. 1974. Chemical studies on some lichens in the Linnaean Herbarium and lectotypification of Lichen rangifrinus L. (em. Ach.). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 6: 259-268. Petiver J. 170249. Gazoph$acii Naturae et Artis Decades. London. Plukenet J. 1696. illmagestum botanicum. London. Poelt J. 1969. Bestimmungsschlussel europaischer Flechten. Verlag Cramer. Lehre. Pouzar Z,Vi?zda A. 1971. Cladonia stellaris (Opiz) Pouz. et Vezda the Correct Name for Cladonia alpestris (L.) Rabenh. Preslia 43: 193-197. Purvis OW, Coppins BJ, Hawksworth DL, James PW, Moore DM. 1992. The Lichenjora of Great Britain and Ireland. Natural History Museum, London. Purvis OW, Jergensen PM, Coppins BJ. in press. Ochrolechia sratalaensis Vers. new to The British Isles. The Lichenologist. Ray J. 1724. Synopsis Methodica Stirpium Britannicarum. ed. 3. London. Redhead SA, Kuyper TW. 1987. Lichenized agarics: taxonomic and nomenclatural riddles. Arctic and Alpine Mycolou 2: 319-348. Robertson A, Stephenson RJ 1932. Lichen acids. Part 111. The constitution of barbatic acid and thc synthesis of isorhizonic and methyl barbate. Journal of the Chemzcal Society 1932: 167551681, Ross R, Irvine LM. 1967. T h e typification of the genus Byssus L. (1753). Taxon 16: 184-186. Royen A van. 1740. Florae Leydensis prodromus. Leiden. Rundel P. 1978. Evolutionary relationships in the Ramalina usnea complex. The Lichenologist 10: 141-1 56. Runemark H. 1956. Studies in Rhirocarpon 1-11, Opera Botanica 2(1): 1-150. Salisbury G. 1978. Greek names and epithets. The Lichenologist 10: 132-134. Santesson R. 1966. Cladonia syluatica and the descriptive method of Linnaeus. ‘Taxon 15: 64-66. Savage S. 1945. A catalogue of the Linnaean Herbarium. Linnean Society. London. Schaerer LE. 1840. Lichenum helveticorurn spicilegium, sect. 10. Bern. Scheuchzer J. 1723. Oureofoiti Helueticus, siue Iternaria per Helvetiae alpinas regiones. Leiden. Stearn WT. 1957. An introduction to the Species plantarum and cognate botanical works of Carl Linnaeus. In reprint of C. Linnaeus: Species Plantarum: 1-1 76. Ray Society. London. Stenhouse J, Groves CE. 1880. Beitrage zum Geschichte der Orcine: Betorcinol und einige seiner Derivate. Liehigs Annalen der Chemie 203: 285-305. Laundon zyxwvutsr zyxwvutsrq zyxwvu zy zyxwvuts zyxwvutsrq zyxwvutsrq zyxwvu zyx zyx zyxwv LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 387 Stenroos S. 1989. l‘axonomv of the Cladonia coccifera Frouo. , I. Annales Botanical Fennici 26: 127-168. Swinscow TDV, Krog H. 1976. l h e Usnea articulata aTgregate in East Africa. Norwegian Journal of Botany 23: 261-268. Tabernaemontanus JT. 1590. Icones plantarum. Frankfurt. Tavares CN. 1958. O n the taxonomy of some Roccella species of the “canariensi.? group. Revista de b’aculdade de Ciencias Lisboa 2a Jer. C, uol. 6, 2: 125-144. Thomson JW.1984. American arctic lichens I. Macrolichem. Columbia Press. New York. Tibell L. 1987. ‘Typification of names of infrageneric taxa described by Acharius and placed by him in Caliciales. Annales Botanici Fennici 24: 257-280. Tensberg T, Holtan-Hartwig J. 1983. Phycotype pairs in Nephroma, Peltigera and Lobaria in Norway. Nordic Journal of Botany 3: 681-688. Tournefort JP de. 1700. fnslitufianes Rei herbarie. Paris. Vaillant S. 1727. Botantcon Parisiense. Leiden & Amsterdam. Vainio EA. 1886. Revisio lichcnum in herbario Linnaei asservatorum. Meddelanden af Societas pro Fauna et Flora fennica 14: 1-10. Vainio EA. 1887. Monographia Cladoniarum Universalias I . Acta Societas pro Fauna et Flora fennica 4: 1-509. Verseghy K. 1962. Die Gattung Ochrolechia. Beihefte t u r J V OHedwigia ~ 1: 1-146. Vitikainen 0, Brodo IM. 1985. Proposal to reject Lichen subfuscus L. (Lichenized fungi). Taxon 34: 533-534. Weber WA. 1963. Lichens of the Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona. Uniuersio of Colorado Studies, Series in Biology _I 10: 1-27. Wei JC. 1993. T h e lectotypification of some species in the Umbilicariaceae described by Linnaeus or Hoffmann. Supplementurn Mycogstma 5: 1-1 7. Wedin M. 1993. A phylogenetic analysis of the lichen family Spaerophoraceae (Caliciales); a new generic classification and notes on character evolution. Plant Systematzcs and Evolution 187: 2 13-241. White FJ, James PW. 1985. A new guide to microchemical techniques for the identification of the lichen substances. Bulletin of the British Lichen Sociely 57 (Supplement): 111-1. White FJ, James PW. 1987. A chemical checklist of British lichens: Part 2. Bulletin o f t h e Brifish Lichen Society 59: 42-47. Yoshimura I, Hawksworth DL. 1970. T h e typification and chemical substances of Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm. Journal ofJapanese Botany 45: 3 3 4 1 . Zahlbruckner A. 1921-1934. Catalogus lichenurn uniuerralis. Borntrager. Leipzig. APPENDIX We have decided to reproduce in its entirety the original Linnaean working manuscript of the genus Lichen for Speciesplantarum (1753). I t gives very good insight into Linnaeus’ working methods, and as seen above, we have been able to solve a number ofproblems by consulting this text. I t should be read in conjunction with the printed version of the book, now readily available in the Ray Society reprint from 1957-59. T h e way in which Linnaeus compiled the work has been well described by Stearn (1957), and it is evident from this manuscript that he usually commenced by using the diagnostic phrase-names from Flora suecica (1745b), sometimes with slight emendations. He also added new diagnoses for new taxa of which he had received material, and, in a few cases, for certain foreign species which he only knew from the literature. T h e late additions are often treated in more detail than the rest and provided with more lengthy descriptions and detailed discussions, the most extreme example being Lichenproboscideus, a species obviously added at such a late stage that it was not included in this version of the manuscript. An interesting example of his working methods is to be found on the first page (p. 567). Here, after having entered species from the main reference works, he added two further species noted in his more peripheral travel account from S k i n e (1751b): L. fagtneus and L. carpineus. I t is also obvious o n the first page, that he initially had some difficulty with the format. He obviously forgot to enter the Habitat of the first species, placed L . geographicus in a wrong place, added the comment referring to L. sanguinarius under the wrong (preceding) species, and also used the incorrect form, neuter instead of masculine, for two epithets (rugosum and sanguinarium), This certainly demonstrates that the author had a hard struggle in completing the work, as he himself revealed in a letter to Back (Sept. 1746): “working from morning to night and going grey over it” (orig. Swedish). It is also obvious that he often left habitat data blank, writing Habztat first and only later adding the relevant data, as can be observed on the first page under the entry geographicus. I n this version of the manuscript, habitat information is missing for a number of species (see e.g. p. 582). I t is also interesting to note that in some cases Linnaeus added, sometimes clearly at a later date, a single word on the right-hand side of the text, as a short habitat code, e.g. such terms as rupestris, arboreus etc. (see e.g. p. 571). This approach is the same as that adopted for the species epithets which are all recorded in the right margins, some having obviously been added a t a later date, including quite a number of corrections and second thoughts. I n the manuscript text L. saxeus, L. mollis and L. bdrophilus have been altered to L. rupestris, L. prunastri and L. caninus respectively. Further changes and additions were made even later, possibly at the proof stage, where for instance I,. rupestris finally is named L . saxalilis. T h e following other changes are affected in the printed work: betulinus (to pbsodes), norlandicus (to arcticus), pulverulentus (to farinaceus), saxeus (to amphalodes) and bronchialts (tofurfuraceus). H e also added epithets where these had not been filled in for several Cladonia species, for example, the varietal epithet alpestris under L. rangiferinus, an afterthought which has subsequently caused considerable nomenclatural difficulties. zyx 388 zyxwvutsr zyxwvut zyxwvutsrqp P. M. J 0 R G E N S E N E T A L I n general it is the corrections and additions which are the most interesting. By studying these it can be seen how the Flora sueczca text was emended, and how Linnaeus subsequently added citations as the work progressed. Of particular interest are those cases where he altered his taxonomic view, most notably in the cases of L. juniperinus and I,. aquaticus discussed above. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 389 390 zyxwvut zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyxwv zy 39 1 392 zyxwvutsrqpon zyxwvu zyxwvu P. M. JmRCENSEN E T AZ, LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 393 394 zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwv zyxwvu P. M. J0RCENSEN E l AL. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyxwv 395 396 zyxwvutsrqpon zyxwvut zyxwvu zyxwvu P. M.J0RCENSEN E T AL. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 397 398 zyxwvutsr zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RCENSEN E T A L LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 399 400 zyxwvutsrqpon zyxwvut zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zy zyxwv 40 1 402 zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwvu zyxwvu P. M. J0RGENSEN E T AL. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES 403 404 zyxwvu zyxwvutsrqp P. M. J0RGENSEN E'T AL. LINNAEAN LICHEN NAMES zyxwv 405