Eponyms are names derived from names of real or mythical persons and
they are usually used as place names, but often also for minerals,
chemical elements, and other entities, including genera of plants,
fungi and animals. An eponym also means a real or mythical person from
whose name another name is derived. In systematic botany the practice
of showing marks of respect to persons in the names of genera has a
long tradition and dates to the 1730s. In 1737 the Swedish naturalist
Carl Linnaeus in his opus Critica botanica in qua nomina plantarum
generica: specifica & variantia examini subjiciuntur, selectoria
confirmatur, indigna rejiciuntur; simulque docrtina circa
denominationem plantarum traditur. Seu Fundamentorum botanicorum pars
IV wrote: “Nomina generica ad Botanici bene meriti memoriam
conservandam constructa, sancta servo”. In the free translation it
means: “It is a bounden duty to retain distinguished botanists in
memory by immortalising them in the names of genera”. In fact,
Linnaeus put this idea into practice in 1735 when, in the first
edition of his Systema naturae, he proposed several such generic
names, for example Bartsia (in honour of Johann Bartsch, a prematurely
deceased friend of his youth), Scheuchzeria (in praise of the Swiss
naturalist Johann Jakob Scheuchzer), Tillandsia (in honour of Elias
Tillands, a Swedish doctor of Åbo, now Turku in Finland) and Rudbeckia
(for Olof Rudbeck, a professor of medicine and botany in
Uppsala). These names were subsequently validated by Linnaeus himself
in 1753 in his Species plantarum, an opus considered to be a starting
point of nomenclature of most plants, algae and lichens. However, he
changed the name Rudbeckia for Linnaea and in this way honoured his
own name in the generic name of his favourite plant. In fact, the
genus name Linnaea was first published by Linnaeus’ teacher Jan
Frederik Gronovius, a Dutch botanist, and Linnaeus only formalised
this name under his modern system of botanical nomenclature. At the
same time Linnaeus reassigned the name Rudbeckia to a well known genus
of the Asteraceae.
The custom of coining eponymous generic names gained wide acceptance
in botany and soon became prevalent in all groups of plants, algae and
fungi. In lichenology the first generic eponyms were proposed in 1809
by E. Acharius. He honoured in this way William Borrer (1781−1862) who
is considered the farther of British lichenology and Jean-Marie-Léon
Dufour (1780−1865), a French mycologist with whom Acharius was in
close touch and who donated to him numerous collections which included
many new species. Acharius was followed by other students of lichens
and consequently the number of generic eponyms increased down the
years. As is often the case this practice started slowly, and in the
first half of the nineteenth century only 19 generic eponyms were
proposed, but a further 103 appeared between 1850−1909.
A certain nomenclatural stagnation took place in the first half of the
twentieth century and between 1910−1949 a mere 55 eponyms were
published, apparently resulting from an abatement of the activity in
botanical studies during the two world wars. However, in the second
half of the twentieth century another eruption in the formation of the
generic eponyms in lichenology occurred and between 1950−2009 no less
than 192 such generic names were coined. In total, from 1809 to 2011
some 379 genera of lichens were published whose names commemorated
lichenologists or persons in some way associated with lichenology
including collectors, botanists, naturalists, friends and/or family
members.
All these eponyms have been tracked down and scrupulously set in the
present book by Hannes Hertel, emeritus professor in the Botanical
Municipal Museum in Munich (Botanische Staatssammlung München).
The book contains an alphabetic list of 287 persons after whom generic
names of lichens and lichenicolous fungi are derived, some of these
having more than one generic eponym. For each person a brief or
extended biographical sketch is provided, which is usually accompanied
by a quotation of the dedication taken from the original publication,
containing a justification for establishing a given eponym. Thus this
book may be considered as an abridged history of lichenology seen
through the prism of the biographies of individual researchers or
persons who in some way contributed to the description of eponymous
genera. Hertel has painstakingly gathered the great amount of
biographical data, through contacts with many people throughout the
world and the consultation of numerous sources containing biographical
details of the persons concerned. Surely, the vast personal contacts
of the author in the lichenological community proved to be helpful,
especially with colleagues he had often met at various conferences and
symposia. A by-product of these meetings is a rich photographic
collections of portraits of present-day lichenologists in the author’s
personal archive from which nearly 40 pictures of eminent students of
lichens are reproduced in the present book.
The survey of eponyms occupies almost the entire book. It is preceded
by a short introduction in which the author presents some interesting
and absorbing statistics. For example, taking into consideration the
sex of eponyms in lichenology, the statistics clearly indicate that
this science is a male dominated realm because, of the 379 generic
eponymous names, only 18 are dedicated exclusively to women. The
situation is even more drastic if the problem is considered
historically. Until 1949 only one genus, Libertiella Speg. & Roum.,
described in 1880, is named for a female, Anne-Marie Libert
(1782−1865), a Belgian (Wallonian) naturalist of Malmedy. Until 1989
only five women attained the honour of receiving eponyms of generic
names of lichens and lichenicolous fungi. The situation somewhat
improved between 1990−2009 when an additional 13 eponymous lichen
genera were dedicated to women.
In the introductory part various kinds of eponyms are discussed,
because the inventiveness of the authors is quite immense in this
field. Most eponyms are simply derived from surnames or Christian
names, but sometimes they are formed from both elements, for instance
Josefpoeltia S.Kondr. & Kärnfelt and Peterjamesia D.Hawksw. In some
cases eponyms are dedicated together to two persons and then only some
parts of their names are used, for example Sagema Poelt & Grube
honours Sabine Miehe and Georg Miehe, and Clarouxia D.Hawksw. is an
agglomeration of the elements of some parts of the surnames of Georges
Clauzade and Claude Roux. Some eponyms are formed from initials and/or
selected components of surnames and Christian names, for example the
generic name Heiomasia Nelsen, Lücking & Rivas Plata is dedicated to
the Dutch/German lichenologist Henricus Johannes Maria Sipman, and
under the name Wawea Henssen & Kantvilas is hidden the American
botanist and lichenologist William A. Weber of Boulder,
Colorado. Finally, eponyms may be anagrams of surnames, for instance
Topelia P.M.Jørg. & Vězda is an anagram of the generic name Poeltia
Grolle (Gymnomitriaceae, Marchantiophyta) dedicated to Josef Poelt
(1924−1995), one of the greatest lichelonogists in the history of the
science and Schrakia Hafellner is an anagram of Karschia Körb.,
originally formed to honour the German doctor and botanist
A. F. F. Karsch (1822−1892).
There are some interesting statistics which are not discussed by the
author but which seem to be worthy of consideration. This includes the
ranking of persons with the highest number of dedicated generic
names. In this category the top position, with seven eponyms, is
occupied by the Austrian lichenologist Josef Poelt. Second, is the
German lichenologist J. A. Philip Hepp (1797−1867) with six
eponyms. In third place comes the French lichenologist Georges
Clauzade (1914−2002) for whom five generic names have been
dedicated. It is necessary to mention that at the opposite pole there
are some eminent students of lichens who never received eponyms of
lichen generic names. This group is headed by E. Acharius (1757−1819),
a Swedish botanist and one of the last disciples of C. Linnaeus, who
initiated taxonomic studies on lichens and for that reason is
considered to be the father of lichenology. In this group there are
also such excellent lichenologists as Theodor M. Fries (1832−1913)
from the famous clan of Swedish botanists, and author of, among other
things, Lichenographia scandinavica; J. M. Crombie (1831−1906), the
eminent British lichenologist and author of a monograph of British
lichens and numerous papers on exotic lichens; and V. Gyelnik
(1906−1945), the famous Hungarian lichenologist who tragically died in
the last days of World War II, but who earlier described many lichen
genera, ten of which were eponyms.
Of other interesting statistics it is worth mentioning lichenologists
who described the highest number of dedicated generic names. This
field is dominated by the British mycologist and lichenologist David
L. Hawksworth, who is the author or co-author of 26 eponymous generic
names. He is followed by the Italian lichenologist V. Trevisan
(1818−1897), who proposed some 23 eponyms for lichen genera. These two
researchers markedly outdistance the Italian botanist and mycologist
R. Tomaselli (1920−1982), who described 17 genera honouring various
persons, including 14 in co-authorship with R. Ciferri
(1897−1964). The Silesian lichenologist G. F. Körber (1817−1885) and
modern Austrian mycologist and lichenologist J. Hafellner have
described 15 eponymous lichen genera each, whilst 13 have been
authored by the Italian lichenologist A. B.
Massolongo (1824−1860). Twelve eponyms were introduced by the Austrian
lichenologist A. Zahlbruckner (1860−1938), whilst the Hungarian
V. Gyelnik and the American C. W. Dodge (1895−1988) described ten
eponymous lichen genera each. The book is a valuable contribution to
lichenological and biohistorical literature. It reminds us of the many
persons who have contributed so much to the development of taxonomic
science on lichens and lichenicolous fungi. Unfortunately, in the
present days such people are often forgotten because traditional
systematics is neglected, being over dominated by phylogenetic studies
based upon molecular techniques. These are undoubtedly valuable but
without well trained taxonomists the harmonious development of
knowledge on lichens (and other groups of organisms) is impossible,
especially in studies of biodiversity. It is also useful to remember
that because of the duality of the lichen thallus taxonomic studies on
lichens have been not as forthcoming as, for example, those of
bryophytes, but each year provides a lot of valuable discoveries of
new taxa.
Ryszard Ochyra
Acta Mus. Siles. Sci. Natur., 63: 52-54, 2014
