Reports

International Lichenological Newsletter Vol. 30, nr. 1, June 1997
Table of Contents IAL3 Meeting II Symbiosis Symposium The Lichenologist Mogens Skytte New Literature Contact us	Reports The third IAL meeting in Salzburg: a personal account "If God created large genera, why should lichenologists go against God's will?" (Pier Luigi Nimis, during a discussion at the IAL meeting in Salzburg, September, 1996). Scientific meetings are often at the generative nodes that radiate new branches in the evolutionary tree of science. The IAL 3 conference in Salzburg (September 1-7,1996) was no exception. Skillfully steered by the organizers, the 350 participants from 48 nations experienced a week of total immersion in a river (shall we call it the Poelt-Lange-Huneck river?) from which new effluents are emerging, their somewhat turbulent currents often twisting like a double helix. The beautiful city of Salzburg also conspired, with real water-saturation, to maintain a high level of participation inside the conference halls. The meeting started with a silent tribute to the late Joseph Poelt, whose presence reverberated throughout many presentations up to the end, when I. Kärnefelt led the participants through a slide history of post-WWII lichenology. Those photographs of the bygone greats and of the younger days of our contemporaries transmitted vitality and continuity. "Will DNA sequences become a surrogate for the detailed knowledge of the lichens we loved?" As early as 1992, at the IAL 2 meeting in Båstad, Sweden, I heard Poelt voice his concern on that point, and DNA-based lichen taxonomies were still in their infancy then! Four years later, DNA-based studies of lichen taxonomy and phylogeny are producing large numbers of posters and oral presentations, revealing and rearranging relationships from the population level (DePriest, Søchting, LaGreca) to the kingdom level (Lutzoni, Gargas). I think, however, that if Poelt could have been in Salzburg with us, ultimately he would have been reassured: the best DNA-based trees cannot exist alone, they need real lichens on their branches. The most reliable taxonomies combine DNA with more traditional morphological, chemical, and ecological approaches, and each perspective modifies, limits, and sharpens the conclusions of the other. DNA-based studies introduce into lichenology the advantages and drawbacks of modern, high technology-driven science. The new technologies allow us for the first time to answer fundamental questions asked since Schwendener's days: about the phylogenetic origin and, soon, the ontogeny of the lichen symbiosis. However, with the rush to resolve such basic issues comes a new competitiveness among the lichenologists applying the new methods. Some unusually lively exchanges of opinions occurred around the global phylogeny issue. Methodological arguments (i.e my computer methods are better than yours!) erupted around lofty questions such as: was lichenization frequently reinvented during the evolution of ascomycetes (as commonly assumed) or was it rare or even unique (currently an anathema to many lichenologists)? A rare (2-4 times) or single origin of lichenization would turn most, if not all, filamentous ascomycetes into ex-lichen fungi. Mycology might at last become a branch of lichenology, at least for Ascomycetes! Once the dust settles, it will be interesting to connect the global fungal phylogenies (Gargas et al.; Lutzoni et al.) with that of lichen algae (Friedl) in which many, but not all, Trebouxias appear monophyletic. Oh yes, algae, they are part of the lichen too...What are they really getting from the symbiosis, just the security of a routine job? We still don't know, despite our theories. Several presentations addressed the peculiar aspects of the lichen's photosynthetic apparatus with new methodologies (De Los Rios; Leisner; Palmquist). Perhaps the symbiotic secrets of lichen algae will be eventually revealed by uncovering more of their photosynthetic adaptations. In lichen chemistry, the traditional analysis of compounds is beginning to be flanked by the application of molecular methods to search for the genes controlling their synthesis (Miao). Whether biotechnological usefulness (eg. in medicine) or theoretical questions (why do lichens make them?) drive this search, the benefit to lichenology seems obvious. The biotechnological exploitation of lichen metabolic potential does not mean the environmental depletion of lichens, as it did in the past. In principle, it is now feasible to transfer metabolism, via its genes, from the originating organism to experimentally convenient ones, like Neurospora (as indicated by M.Galun) or Aspergillus (which is a close relative of lichens according to the phylogeny of Lutzoni et al.). The original organism can be left intact while its genes are labouring in foreign environments. The development of lichen culture has come a long way since Ahmadjian's groundbreaking experiments, as S. Ott and E. Stocker showed using ascolichens and B. Langenstein using basidiolichens. Ott is using her culturing methods to experiment with the effect of phytohormones on thallus morphogenesis. Here lies the future of lichen culture, since we still don't understand the core issues of lichen symbiosis, i.e the molecular communications and cellular responses between the symbionts while they create a lichen. Reproducible and simple culture methods will focus molecular, biochemical, and physiological manipulations on one or a few selected "model lichens", and will shed light on all lichens. In this regard, Cladonia is emerging as a versatile model system: it is used for population biology studies (DePriest), for culture studies (Ott), for cell fusion experiments (Galun), for the search for polyketide synthetase genes (Miao), and for studying the relationship between fungal DNA methylation and symbiosis (Armaleo). The good scientific contributions and the personal interactions among the participants constitute the chief value of scientific meetings, and they were the strong side of IAL3. These advantages outweighed the effect of the not-so-good contributions, whose presence is perhaps unavoidable at such large meetings. I feel, however, that the number of mediocre contributions might be minimized if the conveners of the various sessions remember that they not only deserve praise for the good presentations, but also blame for the bad ones. This limited account is clearly biased and I apologize for all the important contributions I failed to mention, including those on the ecophysiology and ecology of lichens. I also omit a description of the inspiring awards of the Acharius medal, reported in an accompanying article. I will briefly mention, however, a collective and not particularly inspiring contribution on the politics of lichens. At the plenary session one day before the end of the meeting, an extended dispute ensued: did the constitution require the election of a new IAL president (the candidate was M. Jahns), or did it allow to extend I. Kärnefelt's present tenure as president or, actually, did it matter at all what the constitution said? The most popular of all decisions was finally taken, namely to procrastinate until the next day, and let the drinks and the good food of that evening's celebratory dinner restore some sense in our heads. They did, and the next day it was recognized that the constitution required the election of a new president, and M. Jahns was voted in. However, it was also agreed that the constitution requires serious modifications which will be proposed and presented to the membership for discussion. There was a good side to that squabble: it reminded us why we are into lichens and not politics. Daniele Armaleo, Durham From the second Symbiosis Symposium I have just returned from the above very sucessful congress in the marvellous location of Woods Hole, attended by around 150 people. There were only a couple of lichen papers but a fascinating array of symbioses were presented to us from the animals that dwell around hot vents in the deep oceans to orchids or the bacterial symbionts of aphids. They often made one think of parallels in the lichen world. A major difference from the first congress, was the role that molecular biology can now play. Not only were researchers able to determine the nearest free living relatives of symbionts using these techniques but they were often able to shed light on gene interactions and on the biochemical interdependances. There was, however, still plenty that experimental and observational science could contribute. Another feature was a symbiosis workshop for about 40 nearby school teachers. Dr Doug Zook of Cosmos, based in Boston, organized a series of experts to show how protozoa, termites, lichens, mycorrhizas, symbiotic cyanobacteria etc. could be used to make science teaching both more instructive and interesting. Many of us university types got lots of good ideas too !! Several of the teachers described how symbiosis could be a unifying theme and showed posters made by the children. It was decided to set up a new "International Symbiosis Society" which you can all join for the modest sum of US $30 (students $10). For this you will get a newsletter, information via the internet and a reduced subscription rate for the journal Symbiosis. To join, send US cheques or International money orders, payable to the society, to: Dr Charles Bacon, Treasurer of the ISS. USDA. ARS, Russsel Research Centre, Athens, Georgia, 300613, USA. It is hoped later to arrange for payment by credit card but that is not yet possible. Nor will Canadian or Sterling cheques be possible as at the moment the US banks may charge as much as $40 to clear them. Finally, the 3rd International Symbiosis Congress will be in Marburg, Germany in the year 2000. This very old university is situated in another historic site, a worthy successor to Jerusalem and Woods Hole. David Richardson, Halifax The Lichenologist Over the last few years The Lichenologist has become increasingly attractive to many authors. Unfortunately, until recently, this resulted in growing delays between submission of manuscripts and their final appearance in print. This has now been improved by increasing both the frequency of publication (6 issues each year) and size of the journal (600 pages each year). The Lichenologist has now removed the back-log of delayed articles and become a journal for rapid publication. The journal is willing to accept longer articles than before, the proceedings of conferences, symposia and workshops, and review articles on any aspect of lichenology. The refereeing process will continue to be as rigorous as previously with Peter Crittenden, Josef Hafellner and Tor Tønsberg recently joining the editorial board. Although supported by the British Lichen Society, this is a truely international journal. Please address any questions to the Senior Editor, Dr. Dennis Brown at School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK. Tel (+44) 117-9287472. Fax 117-9257374 or e-mail to d.h.brown@bristol.ac.uk. Dennnis H. Brown, Bristol Mogens Skytte Christiansen - An obituary With great sorrow we have to announce that Skytte died February 7th this year at the age of 78. Skytte should have celebrated his golden wedding a month later. Besides his wife he left two daughters. Skytte belonged to the old school of botanical scholars with an all-encompassing interest in plants, mosses, fungi, microbiology, but of course in particular lichens. In addition, he mastered botanical Latin, etymology and nomenclature, much to the benefit of his colleagues. To the public he was well-known for a number of illustrated books on flowers, grasses and cryptogams, written in an easily understandable but yet inspiring language. Several of these popular books were subsequently translated into other languages. Already familiar with flowering plants, when he started his studies at the University of Copenhagen, Skytte focused his interest on cryptogams, and very early on began to study the Danish lichens. Lichenology was not highly esteemed at that time. The foremost Danish lichenologist, O. Gallöe, was not even working at the university and P. Gelting had just begun his work. Gelting left the country during the war and later became leader of the Arctic Station in Godhavn, Greenland, while Skytte took positions at the Polytecnical High School and the Agricultural University until he was appointed head of "Botanisk Centralbibliotek", University of Copenhagen in 1952. His position as librarian allowed Skytte to concentrate his research on lichens. He made huge collections from all over Denmark and from many parts of Europe. By 1946 he had already collected in Greenland, but he never returned there; the sea journey had been too harsh for him. In his early career he provided collections for Gallöe to illustrate in "The Natural History of the Danish Lichens". Skytte tried to identify all his collections, but soon discovered the difficulties in identifying Verrucaria specimens, and devoted much time and energy to that genus, in collaboration with M. Servít. Several new species from Denmark collected by Skytte were published in Servít's book from 1954, and also later in vol. X of Gallöe's monograph. However, Skytte often later expressed scepticism concerning the species concept of Servít. Eventually Skytte passed on to other fields of lichenology but always retained an interest in and a good understanding of the genus Verrucaria. Lichenicolous fungi became Skytte's other great interest. In 1954 he described the genus Nanostictis and in 1956 his first work on Lichenoconium was published. He was particularly interested in Lichenoconium and Taeniolella, together with other imperfect genera, and contributed much material to D. Hawksworth's books on lichenicolous Coelomycetes and Hyphomycetes. In recent years he also studied lichenicolous Heterobasidiomycetes and was in frequent correspondance with Paul Diederich about them. Skytte did not make many scientific publications on his own, preferring to collaborate with others or simply pass on his material and observations to others. However, Skytte completed Gallöe's "The natural history of the Danish lichens" by editing the last volume, which appeared in 1972. In the mid 1970's he collaborated with F. Rose, U. Søchting, K. Ramkaer and S. Svane in making an inventory of the lichens in Danish ancient woodland localities. Skytte's scientific drive was the study and understanding of the organisms, and with that accomplished, he was happy to change subject. He made countless permanent slides of lichens and lichenicolous fungi in different media and photographed most of them at different magnifications, so that all the details are seen. Slides and photographs are numbered and kept in the same perfect order as the specimens themselves. His collections were always mounted and labelled in the most perfect way. When Skytte retired in 1988, he devoted most of his time to sorting, identifying and labeling his collections. Studying his old collections often revealed overlooked lichenicolous fungi and until November last year he eagerly studied those groups. He left on his working tables numerous collections, slides and photographs especially of Taeniolella, Lichenoconium and Verrucaria. After the deaths of Gallöe and Gelting, Skytte was for some years the only active Danish lichenologist. From the later 1960s, however, he was joined by lichenologists educated by himself, among them S. Svane, E. S. Hansen, U. Søchting and V. Alstrup. Skytte's lichen herbarium has been given to the Botanical Museum of Copenhagen (C), while lichenicolous fungi were handed to V. Alstrup. The lichenologists in Copenhagen intend to publish Skytte's undescribed species and will update the Danish checklist based on his collections. In this process we will miss him as a lichenological master, whose comments and advice were always worth considering. Ulrik Søchting & Vagn Alstrup, Copenhagen New Literature Anna V. DOMBROVSKAJA. 1996. Rod Stereocaulon na territorii byvshego SSSR. [The genus Stereocaulon in the territory of the former Soviet Union]. Mir i semya-95, St. Petersburg, 267 pages. ISBN 5-87445-057-2. Price not given but orders should be placed to K. L. Verma, Ul. Rusakovskaya 2/1, apt. 99, 107140 Moscow, Russia; fax 95-2646459, e-mail hariprasad@glas.apc.org. - This is a treatment of 55 species of Stereocaulon, with morphology, lengthy descriptions and discussions, 71 tables of excellent drawings, brief statements of chemistry and distribution in the study area. Much follows Lamb's monographic studies, including many infraspecific entities, and all the nomenclatural novelties by Dombrovskaja (she is using this transliteration) have been published in her earlier papers. The book is a result of a longterm, painstaking work in the field and in herbaria, though her major herbarium KPABG (Kirovsk) is not cited in the work! The paper is entirely in Russian. N. S. GOLUBKOVA, A. V. DOMBROVSKAJA, M. P. ZHURBENKO, Y. V. KOTLOV, Z. G. KRUSANOVA. 1996. Opredelitel lishaynikov Rossii. (Handbook of the lichens of Russia 6. Nauka, Sankt-Peterburg, 204 pp. ISBN 5-02-026044-4). - This is the sixth volume of the work which used to be called "Handbook of the lichens of the U.S.S.R.” - vol. 5 came out in 1978. It includes the treatments of those lichens which used to be included in the Usneaceae but are now placed in the Alectoriaceae and the Parmeliaceae, as well as the Stereocaulaceae. The chapters by Golubkova on the horrible genera Bryoria and Usnea are necessarily rather provisional, since so much additional basic work is required to clarify both European and Asian taxa. The Stereocaulon treatment is just an abbreviated version of Dombrovskaja's monograph. An unusual feature - in my opinion outdated and misleading - is that numerous formae are recognized (17 under Evernia prunastri!); I hope nobody will use them. Otherwise the work is a well-executed, useful summary of the Russian species of the treated genera. (in Russian). Teuvo Ahti, Helsinki

International Lichenological Newsletter Vol. 30, nr. 1, June 1997

Table of Contents

IAL3 Meeting

II Symbiosis Symposium

The Lichenologist

Mogens Skytte

New Literature

Contact us

Reports

The third IAL meeting in Salzburg: a personal account

"If God created large genera, why should lichenologists go against God's will?" (Pier Luigi Nimis, during a discussion at the IAL meeting in Salzburg, September, 1996).

Scientific meetings are often at the generative nodes that radiate new branches in the evolutionary tree of science. The IAL 3 conference in Salzburg (September 1-7,1996) was no exception. Skillfully steered by the organizers, the 350 participants from 48 nations experienced a week of total immersion in a river (shall we call it the Poelt-Lange-Huneck river?) from which new effluents are emerging, their somewhat turbulent currents often twisting like a double helix. The beautiful city of Salzburg also conspired, with real water-saturation, to maintain a high level of participation inside the conference halls. The meeting started with a silent tribute to the late Joseph Poelt, whose presence reverberated throughout many presentations up to the end, when I. Kärnefelt led the participants through a slide history of post-WWII lichenology. Those photographs of the bygone greats and of the younger days of our contemporaries transmitted vitality and continuity. "Will DNA sequences become a surrogate for the detailed knowledge of the lichens we loved?" As early as 1992, at the IAL 2 meeting in Båstad, Sweden, I heard Poelt voice his concern on that point, and DNA-based lichen taxonomies were still in their infancy then! Four years later, DNA-based studies of lichen taxonomy and phylogeny are producing large numbers of posters and oral presentations, revealing and rearranging relationships from the population level (DePriest, Søchting, LaGreca) to the kingdom level (Lutzoni, Gargas). I think, however, that if Poelt could have been in Salzburg with us, ultimately he would have been reassured: the best DNA-based trees cannot exist alone, they need real lichens on their branches. The most reliable taxonomies combine DNA with more traditional morphological, chemical, and ecological approaches, and each perspective modifies, limits, and sharpens the conclusions of the other. DNA-based studies introduce into lichenology the advantages and drawbacks of modern, high technology-driven science. The new technologies allow us for the first time to answer fundamental questions asked since Schwendener's days: about the phylogenetic origin and, soon, the ontogeny of the lichen symbiosis. However, with the rush to resolve such basic issues comes a new competitiveness among the lichenologists applying the new methods. Some unusually lively exchanges of opinions occurred around the global phylogeny issue. Methodological arguments (i.e my computer methods are better than yours!) erupted around lofty questions such as: was lichenization frequently reinvented during the evolution of ascomycetes (as commonly assumed) or was it rare or even unique (currently an anathema to many lichenologists)? A rare (2-4 times) or single origin of lichenization would turn most, if not all, filamentous ascomycetes into ex-lichen fungi. Mycology might at last become a branch of lichenology, at least for Ascomycetes! Once the dust settles, it will be interesting to connect the global fungal phylogenies (Gargas et al.; Lutzoni et al.) with that of lichen algae (Friedl) in which many, but not all, Trebouxias appear monophyletic. Oh yes, algae, they are part of the lichen too...What are they really getting from the symbiosis, just the security of a routine job? We still don't know, despite our theories. Several presentations addressed the peculiar aspects of the lichen's photosynthetic apparatus with new methodologies (De Los Rios; Leisner; Palmquist). Perhaps the symbiotic secrets of lichen algae will be eventually revealed by uncovering more of their photosynthetic adaptations. In lichen chemistry, the traditional analysis of compounds is beginning to be flanked by the application of molecular methods to search for the genes controlling their synthesis (Miao). Whether biotechnological usefulness (eg. in medicine) or theoretical questions (why do lichens make them?) drive this search, the benefit to lichenology seems obvious. The biotechnological exploitation of lichen metabolic potential does not mean the environmental depletion of lichens, as it did in the past. In principle, it is now feasible to transfer metabolism, via its genes, from the originating organism to experimentally convenient ones, like Neurospora (as indicated by M.Galun) or Aspergillus (which is a close relative of lichens according to the phylogeny of Lutzoni et al.). The original organism can be left intact while its genes are labouring in foreign environments. The development of lichen culture has come a long way since Ahmadjian's groundbreaking experiments, as S. Ott and E. Stocker showed using ascolichens and B. Langenstein using basidiolichens. Ott is using her culturing methods to experiment with the effect of phytohormones on thallus morphogenesis. Here lies the future of lichen culture, since we still don't understand the core issues of lichen symbiosis, i.e the molecular communications and cellular responses between the symbionts while they create a lichen. Reproducible and simple culture methods will focus molecular, biochemical, and physiological manipulations on one or a few selected "model lichens", and will shed light on all lichens. In this regard, Cladonia is emerging as a versatile model system: it is used for population biology studies (DePriest), for culture studies (Ott), for cell fusion experiments (Galun), for the search for polyketide synthetase genes (Miao), and for studying the relationship between fungal DNA methylation and symbiosis (Armaleo). The good scientific contributions and the personal interactions among the participants constitute the chief value of scientific meetings, and they were the strong side of IAL3. These advantages outweighed the effect of the not-so-good contributions, whose presence is perhaps unavoidable at such large meetings. I feel, however, that the number of mediocre contributions might be minimized if the conveners of the various sessions remember that they not only deserve praise for the good presentations, but also blame for the bad ones. This limited account is clearly biased and I apologize for all the important contributions I failed to mention, including those on the ecophysiology and ecology of lichens. I also omit a description of the inspiring awards of the Acharius medal, reported in an accompanying article. I will briefly mention, however, a collective and not particularly inspiring contribution on the politics of lichens. At the plenary session one day before the end of the meeting, an extended dispute ensued: did the constitution require the election of a new IAL president (the candidate was M. Jahns), or did it allow to extend I. Kärnefelt's present tenure as president or, actually, did it matter at all what the constitution said? The most popular of all decisions was finally taken, namely to procrastinate until the next day, and let the drinks and the good food of that evening's celebratory dinner restore some sense in our heads. They did, and the next day it was recognized that the constitution required the election of a new president, and M. Jahns was voted in. However, it was also agreed that the constitution requires serious modifications which will be proposed and presented to the membership for discussion. There was a good side to that squabble: it reminded us why we are into lichens and not politics.

Daniele Armaleo, Durham

From the second Symbiosis Symposium

I have just returned from the above very sucessful congress in the marvellous location of Woods Hole, attended by around 150 people. There were only a couple of lichen papers but a fascinating array of symbioses were presented to us from the animals that dwell around hot vents in the deep oceans to orchids or the bacterial symbionts of aphids. They often made one think of parallels in the lichen world. A major difference from the first congress, was the role that molecular biology can now play. Not only were researchers able to determine the nearest free living relatives of symbionts using these techniques but they were often able to shed light on gene interactions and on the biochemical interdependances. There was, however, still plenty that experimental and observational science could contribute. Another feature was a symbiosis workshop for about 40 nearby school teachers. Dr Doug Zook of Cosmos, based in Boston, organized a series of experts to show how protozoa, termites, lichens, mycorrhizas, symbiotic cyanobacteria etc. could be used to make science teaching both more instructive and interesting. Many of us university types got lots of good ideas too !! Several of the teachers described how symbiosis could be a unifying theme and showed posters made by the children. It was decided to set up a new "International Symbiosis Society" which you can all join for the modest sum of US $30 (students $10). For this you will get a newsletter, information via the internet and a reduced subscription rate for the journal Symbiosis. To join, send US cheques or International money orders, payable to the society, to: Dr Charles Bacon, Treasurer of the ISS. USDA. ARS, Russsel Research Centre, Athens, Georgia, 300613, USA. It is hoped later to arrange for payment by credit card but that is not yet possible. Nor will Canadian or Sterling cheques be possible as at the moment the US banks may charge as much as $40 to clear them. Finally, the 3rd International Symbiosis Congress will be in Marburg, Germany in the year 2000. This very old university is situated in another historic site, a worthy successor to Jerusalem and Woods Hole.

David Richardson, Halifax

The Lichenologist

Over the last few years The Lichenologist has become increasingly attractive to many authors. Unfortunately, until recently, this resulted in growing delays between submission of manuscripts and their final appearance in print. This has now been improved by increasing both the frequency of publication (6 issues each year) and size of the journal (600 pages each year). The Lichenologist has now removed the back-log of delayed articles and become a journal for rapid publication. The journal is willing to accept longer articles than before, the proceedings of conferences, symposia and workshops, and review articles on any aspect of lichenology. The refereeing process will continue to be as rigorous as previously with Peter Crittenden, Josef Hafellner and Tor Tønsberg recently joining the editorial board. Although supported by the British Lichen Society, this is a truely international journal. Please address any questions to the Senior Editor, Dr. Dennis Brown at School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UG, UK. Tel (+44) 117-9287472. Fax 117-9257374 or e-mail to d.h.brown@bristol.ac.uk.

Dennnis H. Brown, Bristol

Mogens Skytte Christiansen - An obituary

With great sorrow we have to announce that Skytte died February 7th this year at the age of 78. Skytte should have celebrated his golden wedding a month later. Besides his wife he left two daughters. Skytte belonged to the old school of botanical scholars with an all-encompassing interest in plants, mosses, fungi, microbiology, but of course in particular lichens. In addition, he mastered botanical Latin, etymology and nomenclature, much to the benefit of his colleagues. To the public he was well-known for a number of illustrated books on flowers, grasses and cryptogams, written in an easily understandable but yet inspiring language. Several of these popular books were subsequently translated into other languages. Already familiar with flowering plants, when he started his studies at the University of Copenhagen, Skytte focused his interest on cryptogams, and very early on began to study the Danish lichens. Lichenology was not highly esteemed at that time. The foremost Danish lichenologist, O. Gallöe, was not even working at the university and P. Gelting had just begun his work. Gelting left the country during the war and later became leader of the Arctic Station in Godhavn, Greenland, while Skytte took positions at the Polytecnical High School and the Agricultural University until he was appointed head of "Botanisk Centralbibliotek", University of Copenhagen in 1952. His position as librarian allowed Skytte to concentrate his research on lichens. He made huge collections from all over Denmark and from many parts of Europe. By 1946 he had already collected in Greenland, but he never returned there; the sea journey had been too harsh for him. In his early career he provided collections for Gallöe to illustrate in "The Natural History of the Danish Lichens". Skytte tried to identify all his collections, but soon discovered the difficulties in identifying Verrucaria specimens, and devoted much time and energy to that genus, in collaboration with M. Servít. Several new species from Denmark collected by Skytte were published in Servít's book from 1954, and also later in vol. X of Gallöe's monograph. However, Skytte often later expressed scepticism concerning the species concept of Servít. Eventually Skytte passed on to other fields of lichenology but always retained an interest in and a good understanding of the genus Verrucaria. Lichenicolous fungi became Skytte's other great interest. In 1954 he described the genus Nanostictis and in 1956 his first work on Lichenoconium was published. He was particularly interested in Lichenoconium and Taeniolella, together with other imperfect genera, and contributed much material to D. Hawksworth's books on lichenicolous Coelomycetes and Hyphomycetes. In recent years he also studied lichenicolous Heterobasidiomycetes and was in frequent correspondance with Paul Diederich about them. Skytte did not make many scientific publications on his own, preferring to collaborate with others or simply pass on his material and observations to others. However, Skytte completed Gallöe's "The natural history of the Danish lichens" by editing the last volume, which appeared in 1972. In the mid 1970's he collaborated with F. Rose, U. Søchting, K. Ramkaer and S. Svane in making an inventory of the lichens in Danish ancient woodland localities. Skytte's scientific drive was the study and understanding of the organisms, and with that accomplished, he was happy to change subject. He made countless permanent slides of lichens and lichenicolous fungi in different media and photographed most of them at different magnifications, so that all the details are seen. Slides and photographs are numbered and kept in the same perfect order as the specimens themselves. His collections were always mounted and labelled in the most perfect way. When Skytte retired in 1988, he devoted most of his time to sorting, identifying and labeling his collections. Studying his old collections often revealed overlooked lichenicolous fungi and until November last year he eagerly studied those groups. He left on his working tables numerous collections, slides and photographs especially of Taeniolella, Lichenoconium and Verrucaria. After the deaths of Gallöe and Gelting, Skytte was for some years the only active Danish lichenologist. From the later 1960s, however, he was joined by lichenologists educated by himself, among them S. Svane, E. S. Hansen, U. Søchting and V. Alstrup. Skytte's lichen herbarium has been given to the Botanical Museum of Copenhagen (C), while lichenicolous fungi were handed to V. Alstrup. The lichenologists in Copenhagen intend to publish Skytte's undescribed species and will update the Danish checklist based on his collections. In this process we will miss him as a lichenological master, whose comments and advice were always worth considering.

Ulrik Søchting & Vagn Alstrup, Copenhagen

New Literature

Anna V. DOMBROVSKAJA. 1996. Rod Stereocaulon na territorii byvshego SSSR. [The genus Stereocaulon in the territory of the former Soviet Union]. Mir i semya-95, St. Petersburg, 267 pages. ISBN 5-87445-057-2. Price not given but orders should be placed to K. L. Verma, Ul. Rusakovskaya 2/1, apt. 99, 107140 Moscow, Russia; fax 95-2646459, e-mail hariprasad@glas.apc.org. - This is a treatment of 55 species of Stereocaulon, with morphology, lengthy descriptions and discussions, 71 tables of excellent drawings, brief statements of chemistry and distribution in the study area. Much follows Lamb's monographic studies, including many infraspecific entities, and all the nomenclatural novelties by Dombrovskaja (she is using this transliteration) have been published in her earlier papers. The book is a result of a longterm, painstaking work in the field and in herbaria, though her major herbarium KPABG (Kirovsk) is not cited in the work! The paper is entirely in Russian.

N. S. GOLUBKOVA, A. V. DOMBROVSKAJA, M. P. ZHURBENKO, Y. V. KOTLOV, Z. G. KRUSANOVA. 1996. Opredelitel lishaynikov Rossii. (Handbook of the lichens of Russia 6. Nauka, Sankt-Peterburg, 204 pp. ISBN 5-02-026044-4). - This is the sixth volume of the work which used to be called "Handbook of the lichens of the U.S.S.R.” - vol. 5 came out in 1978. It includes the treatments of those lichens which used to be included in the Usneaceae but are now placed in the Alectoriaceae and the Parmeliaceae, as well as the Stereocaulaceae. The chapters by Golubkova on the horrible genera Bryoria and Usnea are necessarily rather provisional, since so much additional basic work is required to clarify both European and Asian taxa. The Stereocaulon treatment is just an abbreviated version of Dombrovskaja's monograph. An unusual feature - in my opinion outdated and misleading - is that numerous formae are recognized (17 under Evernia prunastri!); I hope nobody will use them. Otherwise the work is a well-executed, useful summary of the Russian species of the treated genera. (in Russian).

Teuvo Ahti, Helsinki