• Back to Encyclopedia Arctica homepage


    Encyclopedia Arctica 5: Plant Sciences (General)


    Unpaginated      |      Vol_V-0093                                                                                                                  


    Unpaginated      |      Vol_V-0094                                                                                                                  


    Unpaginated      |      Vol_V-0095                                                                                                                  
    (EA-PS. Rolf Singer)





    Representation and Importance 2
    Geographical Distribution 9
    Economic Importance 13
    Forestation 13
    Horticulture 13
    Mushrooms for Food 14
    Mushrooms for Reindeer Fodder 14
    Fungi Causing Deterioration 15
    Bibliography 16

    001      |      Vol_V-0096                                                                                                                  
    EA-Plant Sciences

    (Rolf Singer)



            Fungi in the widest sense are nonflowering which, due to their

    dependency upon organic matter for their nutrition, do not need and are con–

    sequently devoid of chlorophyll; instead they live saprophytically or para–

    sitically, or symbiotically on or with other organisms, or on the products

    of decomposition or excrements of these organisms. Taxonomists now agree

    that the term Fungi as a systematic unit should be used only for those spore–

    bearing organisms which: ( 1 ) do not reproduce by fission (this eliminates

    the Bacteria and related groups of microorganisms); ( 2 ) have no plasmodial

    generation consisting of motile, multinucleate protoplasm (this removes

    the Myxothallophyta or slime molds); ( 3 ) are not lichenized, i.e., do not

    live in close association with Algae (this excludes the lichens); ( 4 ) are

    not so closely related to any of the autotrophic Algae that the separation

    from the latter would appear to be artificial from a phylogenetic point of

    view (this keeps the heterotrophic Algae in the appropriate group of Thallo–

    phytra, namely, the Algae. The Fungi proper are divided into four main

    groups” Phycomycetes (myceli x u m, where present, continuous); Ascomycetes

    (perfect stage an ascus, i.e., with reduction division taking place in a

    mother cell inside of which the spores are born); Basidiomycetes (perfect

    stage with spore formation on the outside of a mother cell, called a basi–

    dium); and the Fungi Imperfecti (perfect stage unknown — a temporary sub [ ?]


    002      |      Vol_V-0097                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi


    Representation and importance

            All four classes of Fungi occur in the Arctic and Subarctic, probably

    in approximately the same proportion as they occur in warmer climates, but

    the number of species tends to be smaller than in more temperate regions.

    Some of the species are specifically boreal or arctic in their distribution

    and adaptation. Nevertheless and fungus flora of the Arctic is comparatively

    more important than in the warmer zones; indeed in number and diversity,

    Fungi in the North may even outweigh the flowering plants, though as com–

    ponents of vegetation they are relatively minor. In order to illustrate

    this numerical preponderance we may consider the flora of Greenland where

    E. V. Wulff indicates 416 species of flowering plants (phanerogams), whereas

    the known number of Fungi is about 850, i.e., there are more than twice as

    many Fungi — a figure that will tend to increase as mycological investiga–

    tions proceed. To date, most of the material studied has consisted of dead

    and diseased portions of flowering plants collected for general herbaria by

    phanerogamists, and more specific collecting of Fungi on other substrata

    has been neglected. Aside from that, we must keep in mind that lichens are

    merely a symbiotic form of life realized by close association of a fungus

    with an alga, and that the number of lichen species in Greenland is several

    hundred — a fact that should not be surprising, as many earth and rock–

    inhabiting lichens are particularly well adapted to the severe climatic con–

    ditions of the Arctic. By way of contrast, we know that the number of Fungi

    observed in Morocco, recently enumerated by R. Maire and R. G. Werner, is

    1,200, whereas the phanerogams of the same region are estimat e d to number as

    high as 2,400.

    3-4      |      Vol_V-0098                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

            It is impossible to describe in detail the arctic fungus flora inde–

    pendently from the fungi of other regions, as it is a remarkable fact that

    not a single fungus genus has been discovered which is exclusively arctic

    in distribution or character. However, certain groups (orders, families,

    and genera) within the two largest groupings of Ascomycetes and Basidio–

    mycetes are distinctly more prominent and numerically more strongly repre–

    sented than others. For example, in the Ascomycetes, we find a remarkably

    strong representation among the Myrangiales (asci born internally, singly,

    in loculi), the Sphaeriales (asci born in cavities with osticles: perithecia),

    and the Helotiales and Pezizales (cup fungi, [ ?] w ith asci born externally on

    palisades). Among the Basidiomycetes, we find the Ustilaginales (smuts), the

    Uredinales (rusts), and the Agaricales (mus [ ?] hrooms) to be dominating. The

    majority of the Myrangiales and Sphaeriales grow on weakened or dead parts

    of flowering plants (stems and leaves)’ Ustilaginales and Uredinales are

    true para ti sit es; Agaricales are, mostly at least, seemingly soil-inhabiting,

    but some live in symbiosis and others on decaying cellulose or on dung, etc.

            As for the Basidiomycetes (viz., Agaricales and Gasteromycetes), some

    unpublished work by the present author as well as some papers published

    recently by M. Lange (4) and some which are still unpublished in 1950 (with

    a summary of the results made available to the author by the cou [ ?] r tesy of

    Mr. Lange) enable us now to recognize the characteristic features of the

    “agaric,” “bolete,” and “puffball” flora of Greenland and the alpine-arctic

    zones of Lapland. It appears that the most important agaricaceous genera

    (they are there commonly linked by symbiosis with low birches and willows)

    are Russula (especially Russula emetica subsp. alpestris ), Lactarius ,

    005      |      Vol_V-0099                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

    Cortinarius , Hebeloma and Inocybe . The important nonmycorrhizal genera [ ?] are

    Laccaria (especially L. laccata ), Omphalina , Melanoleuca , Marasmiellus

    (especially M. fibula ), Collybia , Amanita (significantly — considering the

    evidently faulty hypothesis of a protective value of the veils — only species

    with rudimentary inner or outer veil), Agaricus , Galerina , and Cystoderma .

    Among the Boletaceae, we encounter only Leccinum. Laccaria and Habeloma are

    the genera most prevalent in the extreme northern stations (around lat. 82° N.

    in Greenland). Occasionally, in regions with a more “Atlantic” climate, in

    Greenland as well as in Lapland, species of the genera Camarophyllus ,

    Hygrocybe , and Mycena are met with, and exceptionally even Rhodophyllus (an

    undetermined species), Rozites caperata , and Clitocybe sp. Among the Aphyllo

    phorales , Leptotus lobatus seems to be widely distributed, and among the

    Gasteromycetes (puffballs) Lange indicates Geaster minimus , Calvatia cretacea ,

    C. tatrensis , C. arctica , Lycoperdon umbrinum , L. nigrescens , L. spadiceum ,

    L. pusillum , Bovista echinella , B. tomentosa , B. nigrescena , Crucibulum vulgare ,

    and Sphaerobolus stellatus for Greenland, and Bovistella paludosa for Lapland.

            Owing presumably to the absence of a large reservoir of decaying woody mat–

    erial, such genera as Cyttaria , Xylaria , Hypoxylon , Nectria , and allie d s among

    the Ascomycetes, and Polyporus , Poria , Fomes , Coriolus and [ ?] all ies, as well as

    Stereum , Corticium , Peniophora , and Auricularia among the Basidiomycetes, and

    also all the imperfect forms related to these groups, are either not represented

    at all or are very rare in the Arctic. The same is true for Fungi normally

    growing in close association with the roots of living forest trees (conifers,

    Salicales, Fagales, Tilia , Fraxinus , etc.), such as Elaphomyces and the true

    truffles (Tuberales) among the Ascomycetes, and most hypogeous Gasteromycetes,

    as well as many boletes and agarics. With them, naturally, the fungus

    006      |      Vol_V-0100                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

    parasites of those fungi are likewise absent from the arctic regions (for

    example, Hypomyces lactifluorum ).

            It appears thus far that the Fungi inhabiting dead stems and leaves of

    flowering plants are most favored under arctic conditions. This may be because

    of the reduced competition on the part of soil-inhabiting Fungi Imperfecti and

    Bacteria, both of which groups are considerably smaller in number of representa–

    tives, and less active than in temperate and tropical regions, owing presumably

    to the short northern summer. For this reason vegetative remains fail to decay

    rapidly but become, after overwintering, a suitable substratum for certain

    Sphaeriales and other Ascomycetes. This explains not only the preponderance

    of some of the groups enumerated above, but also the reduced geographic areas

    of certain fungi as compared with those of their host plants. Lind (6) in–

    dicates several interesting instances of definitely arctic, arctic-subarctic,

    or else arctic-alpine areas of parasitic or saprophytic fungi on hosts whose

    area extends considerably into the Temperate Zone. For instance, Rhytisma

    empetri and Sphaeropezia empetri were observed only in the arctic and alpine

    regions of the area of Empetrum nigrum , whereas other fungi ( Physalospora empetri

    and Chrysomyxa empetri ) follow Empetrum through its entire area. Similar in–

    stances have been further discussed by Lind, Komarov, Murashkinski and Ziling

    (9), Tranzschel (13, and Yachevski (14). Naturally, the opposite situation,

    where the area of the fungus is larger than that of its arctic host, also occurs.

    All this proves that the areas of host and parasite do not necessarily coincide —

    as has also been substantiated in extra-arctic regions.

            The large number of fungus species as compared with the phanerogams may

    appear surprising at first glance even though the special condition of the over–

    wintering dead leaves and stems is taken into consideration; for this substratum

    007      |      Vol_V-0101                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

    does not explain the large number of Pezizales and Agaricales, and those

    microscopic fungi that occur on substrata other than dead stems and leaves.

    However, the Arctic actually abounds in an inexhaustible reservoir of suit–

    able substrata. The rich lichen flora provides a great number and diversity

    of host plants, as is shown by the fact that a lichen collection, taken

    almost at random in Spitsbergen in 1921 and sent to a specialist (K. Keissler),

    yielded 12 species of licen parasites. Mosses, especially the Polytrichaceae,

    and hepatics, which are also rather numerous in arctic regions, provide the

    habitat for many Far Northern agarics ( Omphalina , Cortinarius , Galerina , Hy

    grocybe , Marasmiellus , Inocybe , etc.), and such genera as Cyphella and Lep

    totus . Agarics (especially the dark-spored groups) as well as some Pezizales

    and Helotiales, other Ascomycetes, and Phycomycetes, find a good substratum

    in bird droppings and other kinds of dung.

            The families Gentianaceae, Ericaceae, and Primulaceae among other are

    known to depend largely for nomal development on endotrophic mycorrhiza.

    These fungi live in the roots of the plants and enter the cells, deriving for

    themselves as well as providing for the host some nutritive advantages by

    alternately absorbing cell sap by haustoria, and being digested by the host.

    Furthermore, even though forest trees, which form ectotrophic or peritrophic

    mycorrhiza (fungus hyphae surrounding or enveloping the rootlets but not

    entering the cells), are absent in truly arctic territories, some species

    belonging to those genera form extensive stands over wide regions of the

    Arctic and Subarctic, namely the shrubby or almost herbaceous birches and

    willows. There are many species of boletes and agarics connected with one

    species of northern birch alone, and this explains the presence, in the arctic

    tundra, of such large mushroom carpophores as those of Leccinum scabrum subsp.

    008      |      Vol_V-0102                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

    rotundifoliae and L. testaceoscabrum var. arcticum . Other habitats of fungi

    in the Arctic are diseased and dead insects, driftwood on the beaches, dead

    and living fishes, and dead and living algae. None of these habitats has

    as yet been studied extensively.

            The true parasites seem to be somewhat rarer in the Arctic Zone than

    farther south, which may be explained by the fact that the sparse, scat–

    tered growth of many host plants tends to decrease direct competition between

    the host plants in dense populations as a preparatory factor for fungus in–

    fection, and also minimizes the cha n ce of infection of the right host by

    wind-blown spores. (Most true parasites such as rusts are hi hg gh ly specialized

    as to the taxonomic position of the host). This supposition seems to be sup–

    ported by the fact that in the Arctic the percentage of fungi with a wide

    host range is much larger than in the temperate zones, the number of strictly

    specialized forms growing exclusively on one host species being far smaller

    than in warmer regions. Among the rust fungi, where most species in the Tem–

    perate Zone ordinarily pass through several generations of spore formation,

    there is a tendency to abbreviate this complicated life cycle by omitting

    some of the spore forms. Such rusts with drastically abbreviated life cycle

    are called microcyclic Uredinales (1). Roughly one-third of the arctic rusts

    are genuine microforms, which is a much higher percentage than in the tem–

    perate zones, and the vast majority of the remaining species are adapted

    to arctic conditions either by omission of one spore form or the other, or

    else by the formation of a perennial mycelium. However, many of the “arctic”

    forms occur in the temperate zones also, and consequently cannot be inter–

    preted as having a secondary adaptation to arctic conditions, but rather an

    initial advantage enabling these forms rather than others to penetrate into

    arctic habitats.

    009      |      Vol_V-0103                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

            Yachevski (14) thinks that in the alpine Ascomycetes, the perithecia

    are thick-walled and of scelrotial type, and harder than those developed in

    the lowlands; moreover, the development of the asci and spores is allegedly

    slowed, the asci can be found in the most different stages of development in

    a single fruiting body, and the spores tend to be large and bright golden–

    yellow. The present author has noted that in alpine stations the spores

    are more often ornamented than smooth, and Heim and Singer have found that

    the spores tend to be larger in mountain forms and races. No corresponding

    facts have been established statistically for the Arctic, but one may be

    inclined to think that the similarity of conditions in the high mountains

    and the Arctic, the identity of many species in both floras, and the analo–

    gous case of the microcyclic rusts which are more numerous both in the Arctic

    and in mountains than elsewhere, would tend to make it probable that most of

    the peculiarities of the alpine mycoflora will also be proved to exist in the



    Geographical Distribution

            There must have been an exchange of species between the large mountain

    massifs of North America, Europe, and Asia, and the arctic regions of those

    continents during the various glaciations and particularly in the interglacial

    periods. This does not mean that any one of these floras has necessarily been

    derived from any other, but merely that there must have been contact or migra–

    tion of floral elements, at least as far as the Fungi are concerned. Some of

    the species occurring both in the arctic regions and in the mountain ranges

    farther south are: Massaria eucarpa (Spitsbergen and Caucasus); Phyllosticta

    calthae (Kamchatka and Caucasus); Botrychonema juncisedum (Greenland, Iceland,

    Adirondack Mountains, and Alps); Phoma alpina (Ellesmere Island, Umanak, and

    010      |      Vol_V-0104                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

    Alps); Clathrospora pentamera (circumpolar: arctic and subarctic; also in

    the Rocky Mountains, the Pamir, and the Italian mountains); Russula emetica

    subsp. alpestris (Greenland eastward to Novaya Zemlya; also in the Alps,

    Carpathian Mountains, and Caucasus); Melanoleuca evenosa (Iceland, Alps,

    and Caucasus); Amanita vaginata (Greenland, Lapland, Alps); Omphalina abiegna

    (Lapland, Alps); certain forms of Galerina hypnorum (Lapland, Greenland, White

    Mountains in New Hampshire, Altai Mountains, Alps); Lactarius repraesentaneus

    and L. torminosus (Lapland, ?Gr f e enland, Altai Mountains); Leccinum scabrum

    subsp. rotundifoliae (Greenland westward to Novaya Zemlya; Altai Mountains);

    Calvatia tatrensis (Greenland, Tatra).

            The majority of the species that make up the flora of the Arctic have a

    wide distribution; some have been demonstrated to be continuously distributed

    around the North Pole (for example, Mycosphaerella tassiana Mycosphaerella tassiana on no less than

    110 different host plants ranging from Lycopodium to Hieracium ). Only a few

    species are so adaptable as to be almost cosmopolitan (for example, the smut

    Cinctractia caricis in the widest sense, and the puffball Crucibulum vulgare ),

    and although several species have so far been reported only from one single

    region (e.g., Micromyces wheldenii from the Canadian Eastern Arctic and Puc

    cinia rhytisomoides from the northernmost parts of the European Continent), it

    may be expected that most of them will be found to occur also elsewhere and

    thus cease to be “endemics.” The only region which may be expected to have a

    comparatively large degree of endemism is the northeastern Siberian Arctic.

            The generally wide distribution of the arctic fungi may [ ?] at first glance

    appear to be a puzzling fact, as land tabai table for plant life is dispersed

    and disrupted by wide stretches of ocean. The theory of spore-and seedcarry–

    ing birds as a means of plant migration over large distances has been gradually

    011      |      Vol_V-0105                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

    abandoned by most plant geographers. The hypothetical prehistoric land bridges

    are a matter of controversy. According to Lind (7), none of these explanations

    is needed as far as the fungi are concerned. During the arctic winter, fragments

    of plants with resistant spores or perennial mycelium (almost all arctic fungi

    have one or ther other, or both) intheir [ ?] tissue or attached to them, may

    easily be carried across the ice by the wind, and will then be scattered to–

    gether with the snow upon the frozen ground as much as 400 miles away from

    their original habitat. After reaching some new arctic land, the fragments

    have a fair chance of falling upon or near a suitable substratum, or when

    the summer thaw comes of finding their way into some rivulet which will carry

    them to such a substratum.

            However, this explanation does not take into account the fact that the

    almost unknown Antarctic fungus flora is so surprisingly similar to the arctic

    mycoflora — indeed to a degree that makes it impossible to interpret the

    analogy as coincidental. The same genera and sometimes the same species pre–

    vail in the mountain zone of Tierra del Fuego and in Greenland. For instance,

    the species Leptotus lobatus is equally distributed in both regions, and the

    Laccarias are as dominant in the Antarctic as in the Arctic. So as the Melano–

    leucas (having in some cases even identical or nearly identical species in

    both hemispheres), the Cystodermas and Omphalinas (in many cases identical

    species), Camarophyllus aff. lacmus , Marasmiellus fibula , Agaricus campestris ,

    and certain species of Galerina and Naematoloma . While Russula is rare and

    Lactarius , Hebeloma , and the Boletaceae are unknown in the subantarctic and

    antarctic regions, it is remarkable that Cortinarius is very rich in species

    in both of these regions, and so is Inocybe — the last two general forming

    mycorrhize with shrubby and subherbaceous willows and birches in the North

    012      |      Vol_V-0106                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

    and with shrubby Nothofagus Nothofagus in the South. Consequently, Lind’s wind-over–

    ice theory, even though it correctly describes a specifically arctic way

    of fungus dissemination, cannot explain the wide distribution of many arctic

    genera and species.

            It it were assumed — as indeed it is by numerous plant geographers —

    that migration has taken place long the mountain ranges of the Americas

    extending from north to south, there is no explanation for the specific

    identity of some floral elements in the Arctic and Antarctic, nor is there

    a way of overcoming the difficulty of exaplining the manner by which plants

    adapted to the frigid zones could have passed over the lowlands and low hills

    of southern Central America. It seems more logical to assume an originally

    homogeneous flora of which some components were able to adapt themselves to

    the extreme conditions of the frigid zones and to survive there, while grad–

    ually exposed to extinction in the moderate and warm climates because of com–

    petition with species which were themselves adapted more specifically to

    conditions prevalent in the extra-arctic regions.

            This hypothesis does not by necessity deny the role of migration in

    specification, but it denies the specific migration from the Canadian Arctic

    along the Rockies and the Andes to the Antarctic in comparatively recent

    times, i.e., of the existing species common to both the arctic and the antarc–

    tic mycoflora. It implies that in the more numerous cases where only the

    genera l are common to both regions, the species have been born by mutations

    caused, for example, by climatic changes, and that specification has been

    analogous but slightly different in the Arctic and in the Antarctic. The fact

    that a large percentage of the arctic and antarctic fungi are not exclusively

    013      |      Vol_V-0107                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

    adapted to frigid conditions and extend their areas far into the warmer

    regions, and the fact that mycologists will readily agree that most species

    common to the arctic and antarctic floras may be characterized as compara–

    tively primitive, will tend to corroborate the author’s views.


    Economic Importance

            The role of fungi in nature consists of the decomposition of dead vege–

    table masses and their transformation into humus (saprophytes), and the

    transformation of nutritive elements into such a form as can be assimilated

    by higher plants (symbionts). Aside from these functions there are many

    practical uses for fungi under arctic and boreal conditions, and also much

    economic damage caused by them.

            Forestation . Attempts at forestation in Iceland show that those trees

    trees which at last became established are accompanied by their mycorrhizal

    fungi, for example, Pinus mugho by Suillus luteus . All such experimental

    plantations should in the future be planned with a view to the role of the

    fungus partner of each tree species, its resistance to the climatic conditions

    being fully as important as the ecology of the tree itself. This is equally

    valid for the growing of berries of the [ ?] Vaccinioideae group, such as cran–


            Horticulture . As many crops in the Arctic are greenhouse, plants, the

    control of their diseases should be similar to that indicated under the same

    conditions in other regions. One important outdoor crop of the Soviet tundra,

    red radishes, does not seem to be affected seriously by fungus disease. Hardy

    crops that might in the future be adapted to subarctic agriculture may profit

    by the existence of a certain margin between the [ ?] minimum growth temperature

    014      |      Vol_V-0108                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

    of the host and that of the parasite, as has indeed been pointed out for

    wheat rust by Chester.

            Mushrooms for Food . A successful method of growing commercial white mush–

    rooms in the Arctic has not been worked out because of the difficulty of ob–

    taining suitable manure locally, and the high cost of heating the mushroom

    houses to the optimum growth temperature of Agricus bisporus . Future experi–

    ments will undoubtedly endeavor to adapt one of the local wild species such

    as Melanoleuca evenosa , with an already low optimum growth temperature and

    more easily available substratum. If such a method could be worked out,

    these mushrooms would be an ideal year-round crop in the Arctic, as mushrooms

    do not require light for normal development.

            Mushrooms collected in summer and eaten fresh, or pickled or dried for

    winter use, are one of the most valued vegetable crops of the arctic and

    especially the subarctic regions of Europe and Asia. Potentially, however,

    they would be equally valuable in Alaska and other parts of the American Arctic.

    The arctic fungus flora is particularly low in poisonous species. Aside from

    some very small agarics ( Clitocybe and Inocybe ), there is only the well-known,

    easily recognizable Amanita muscaria (fly mushroom), which is widely used by

    the natives of northern Siberia and Kamchatka as an intoxicating drug. All

    other species so far known to occur in the Arctic or Subarctic appear to be


            Mushrooms as Reindeer Fodder . An important aspect of the fungi is their

    use as fodder either by direct pasturing of animals or by preparation of

    mushroom-containing fodder. The reindeer feeds on mushrooms as well as on

    lichens, and even in winter digs the frozen mushrooms out of the snow. The

    local and seasona [ ?] l abundance of mushrooms is a factor in the choice of

    015      |      Vol_V-0109                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi

    feeding grounds in Lapland and northern U.S.S.R. According to Rautavaara (12),

    the weight of the reindeer is on an average 20% higher than normal in a good

    mushroom year, and 12% lower than normal in a year when mushrooms are scarce.

    Fodder containing mushrooms accounts for about 20% of the meat production,

    valued at about 10 million Finnish marks per year, in Finnish Lapland alone.

            Fungi Causing Deterioration . Some fungi, such as the domestic fungus

    Serpula lacrimans (also incorrectly called “ Merulius lacrymans ”) and Lentinus

    lepideus , cause the deterioration of the wooden frames, wharves, railway ties, and

    all kinds of wooden structures, even in mines. These fungi are not so danger–

    ous in the Arctic as they are in warmer regions, as they do not grow fast

    enough outdoors; yet indoors they may be very destructive. The deteriora–

    tion of fabrics in the tropics, which is mostly due to Fungi Imperfecti, has

    lately received much attention. Data on fungus destruction of fabrics in the

    Arctic are not available at present, but it is expected to be less severe

    than in the topics or even in the temperate zones.

    016      |      Vol_V-0110                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi


    1. Arthur, J.C., “Notes on arctic Uredinales,” Mycologia , vol.20, no.1,

    pp.41-43, 1928.

    2. Berkeley, M.J. “Enumeration of the fungi collected during the Arctic

    Expedition 1875-76,” Linncan Soc. J . vol.17, pp.13-17, 1878.

    3. Dearness, J. “The fungi of the arctic coast of American west of the

    looth meridian,” Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18.

    Report. Botany . Pt.C. Fungi , vol.4, 1923.

    4. Lange, M. “Macromycetes. Part I: The Gasteromycetes of Greenland in

    The Botanical Exploration of West Greenland 1946,” Medd .

    Grønland , vol.147, no.4.

    5. Larsen, Poul. “Fungi of Iceland,” Botany of Iceland vol.2, pp.451-607,

    1931. (With literature.)

    6. Lebedeva, L.A. Griby Arkticheskogo Poberezhia Sibiri . (Mushrooms of

    the Arctic Littoral.) Leningrad, 1928. Akad.Nauk Komissiia

    po Izucheniiu Yakutskoi Avtonomnoi Sovets. Sotsial.Resp.

    Trudy , vol.12.

    7. Lind, J. “Studies on the geographical distribution of arctic circumpolar

    micromycetes,” Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Biologiske Medd . vol.11,

    no.2, pp.1-152, 1934. (Includes fairly complete literature

    on the subject.)

    8. Linder, D.H. “Fungi,” Polunin, Nicholas. Botany of the Canadian

    Eastern Arctic . Ottawa, 1947, pt.2, pp.234-83, Nat.Mus.Can.

    Bull . no.97. Biological Ser . no.26.

    9. Murashkinski, K.E., and Ziling, M.K. “Materialy po Mikoflore Altaya i

    Sayana.” (Materials on the mycroflora of the Altai and Saian.)

    Sibirskii Inst. Selskogo Khoz. i Lesovod., Omsk. Trudy , vol.10,

    no.4, pp.1-31, 1928.

    10. Nannfeldt, J.A. “Contributions to the mycoflora of Sweden,” Svensk .

    Bot.Tidskr . vol.22, no.1-2, pp.115-39, 1928.

    11. Norwegian Expedition to Novaya Zemlya 1921. Report of the Scientific

    Results . Ed. by Olaf Holtedahl. Oslo, Brøggers, 1924-30.

    3 vol. (Particularly the papers on fungi.)

    12. Rautavaara, Toivo. Suomen Sienisato, Porwoo . Helsinki, 1947.

    13. Tranzschel, W.H. “Griby i Myxomycety Kamtchatki.” (Mushrooms and mycomycetes

    of Kamchatka.) Komarov, et al. Expedition a Kamtchatka ,

    vol.2, pp.535-76, f.1, 1914 (German resume, p.595).

    017      |      Vol_V-0111                                                                                                                  
    EA-PS. Singer: Fungi - Bibliography

    14. Yachevski, A.A. Osnovy Mikologii . (Foundations of Mycology.) Moscow,

    Leningrad, 1933, (Especially Chap.XI, 5, 5A, pp.809-825.

    With list of literature.)


    Rolf Singer

    Back to top