Editing Lichenology (section)

===19th century===

Against this background appeared the Swedish botanist [[Erik Acharius]] disciple of Linnaeus, who is today considered the father of lichenology, starting the taxonomy of lichens with his pioneering study of Swedish lichens in Lichenographiae Suecicae Prodromus of 1798 or in his Synopsis Methodica Lichenum, Sistens omnes hujus Ordinis Naturalis of 1814.<ref>{{cite book |last=Acharius |first=Erik |date=1814 |title=Synopsis Methodica Lichenum: Systens omnes hujus ordinis naturalis detectas |language=la |trans-title=Synopsis of lichen Methods, systems of this natural order detected |publisher=Svanborg}}</ref> These studies and classifications are the cornerstone of subsequent investigations. In these early years of structuring the new discipline various works of outstanding scientific importance appeared such as Lichenographia Europaea Reformata published in 1831 by [[Elias Fries]] or Enumeratio Critico Lichenum Europaeorum 1850 by [[Ludwig Schaerer]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://plants.jstor.org/stable/history/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000391348|title=Edit History: Schaerer, Ludwig Emanuel (Louis-Emmanuel) (1785-1853) on JSTOR|website=plants.jstor.org}}</ref> in Germany.<ref>Lauder Lindsay, William (1856). ''A Popular History of British Lichens''. p. 27.</ref>

[[File:Erik Acharius.jpg|thumb|Erik Acharius (1757–1819), Swedish botanist, the father of lichenology]] 

But these works suffer from being superficial and mere lists of species without further physiological studies.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Schneider | first1 = Albert | year = 1895 | title = The Biological Status of Lichens | journal = Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club | volume = 22 | issue = 5| pages = 189–198 | doi = 10.2307/2478161 | jstor = 2478161 }}</ref> It took until the middle of the 19th century for research to catch up using biochemical and physiological methods. In Germany {{ill|Hermann Itzigsohn|de}}<ref>{{cite web | url=http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/botanist_search.php?id=3942 | title=Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries}}</ref> and [[Johann Daniel Wilhelm Bayrhoffer|Johann Bayrhoffer]],<ref>{{cite web | url=http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/botanist_search.php?mode=details&botanistid=1617 | title=Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries}}</ref> in France [[Edmond Tulasne]] and [[Camille Montagne]], in Russia [[Fedor Buhse]],<ref>{{cite web | url=http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/botanist_search.php?id=63245 | title=Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries}}</ref> in England [[William Allport Leighton]] and in the United States [[Edward Tuckerman]] began to publish works of great scientific importance.

Scientific publications settled many unknown facts about lichens. In the French publication [[Annales des Sciences Naturelles]] in an article of 1852 "Memorie pour servir a l'Histoire des Lichens Organographique et Physiologique" by [[Edmond Tulasne]], the reproductive organs or apothecia of lichens was identified.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Williams | first1 = Thomas A. | year = 1856 | title = The Status of the Algo-Lichen Hypothesis | journal = The American Naturalist | volume = 23 | issue = 265 | pages = 1–8 | doi =10.1086/274846 | doi-access =  | s2cid = 84605645 }}</ref><ref>Lauder Lindsay, William (1856). ''A Popular History of British Lichens''. p. 23.</ref>

These new discoveries were becoming increasingly contradictory for scientists. The [[apothecium]] reproductive organ being unique to [[fungi]] but absent in other [[photosynthetic]] organisms. With improvements in [[microscopy]], [[algae]] were identified in the lichen structure, which heightened the contradictions. At first the presence of algae was taken as being due to contamination due to collection of samples in damp conditions and they were not considered as being in a [[symbiotic]] relation with the fungal part of the thallus. That the algae continued to multiply showed that they were not mere contaminants.

It was [[Anton de Bary]] a German [[mycologist]] who specialised in [[phytopathology]] who first suggested in 1865 that lichens were merely the result of parasitism of various fungi of the [[ascomycetes]] group by [[nostoc]] type algae and others. Successive studies such as those carried out by [[Andrei Famintsyn]] and [[Baranetzky]]<ref>{{cite web | url=http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/botanist_search.php?mode=details&id=70084 | title=Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries}}</ref> in 1867 showed no dependence of the algal component upon the lichen thallus and that the algal component could live independently of the thallus.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Fink | first1 = Bruce | year = 1913 | title = The Nature and Classification of Lichens: II. The Lichen and its Algal Host | doi = 10.2307/3753090 | journal = Mycologia | volume = 5 | issue = 3 | pages = 97–166 | jstor = 3753090 }}</ref> It was in 1869 that [[Simon Schwendener]] demonstrated that all lichens were the result of fungal attack on the cells of algal cells and that all these algae also exist free in nature. This researcher was the first to recognise the dual nature of lichens as a result of the capture of the algal component by the fungal component.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Honegger | first1 = Rosmarie | year = 2000 | title = Simon Schwendener (1829–1919) and The Dual Hypothesis of Lichens | doi = 10.1639/0007-2745(2000)103[0307:ssatdh]2.0.co;2 | journal = The Bryologist | volume = 103 | issue = 2 | pages = 307–313 | s2cid = 84580224 }}</ref> In 1873 [[Jean-Baptiste Edouard Bornet]] concluded form studying many different lichen species that the relationship between fungi and algae was purely [[symbiotic]]. It was also established that algae could associate with many different fungi to form different lichen [[phenotypes]]. 

[[File:Édouard Bornet.jpg|thumb|French botanist (Jean-Baptiste) Édouard Bornet (1828–1911)]]