It was shown that the oldest Dutch lichen herbarium known was that of H. Boerhaave dating as far back as the end of the 17th or the beginning of the 18th century. After that there was a long spell of inactivity, until from about 1835 onward the florists again started making herbaria. From the end of the nineteenth century the interest flagged again, and collecting was done by very few people. The first publications which are known to deal with Dutch lichens mentioning the locality do not date back farther than the 17th century, the work by C. Pilleterius (1610) being the oldest one. Those earliest publications comprised but a very small number of lichens, presumably because of few of them the officinal application (the main impetus of getting acquainted with plants) was known yet. In the seventeenth century, the lichens were designated by phrase-names which, with some certainty, may be identified with the Linnean names, but nevertheless remain somewhat obscure. Gradually, in the 18th century, the interest in lichens shifted from the medicinal to the botanical side. The number of lichens known steadily increased, and the binomial nomenclature was more generally applied. The habit of uncritically copying certain successful foreign floras was abandoned, and it grew customary among the florists to publish cheek-lists of own finds, though specific, descriptions were often borrowed from foreign authors. In some cases, however, it still appears uncertain which species were meant, as no material was left. The lichenology in Holland showed its greatest development in the 19th century. Phis was undoubtedly mainly due to the activity of the newly founded Botanical Society (1845), and particularly by the efforts of its undefatigable president R. B .van den Bosch. Except for the experimental investigation by M. Treub (1873), however, the interest in lichens never surpassed the stage of writing enumerations of the local flora. None of the florists felt called upon to study any special group of lichens. In fact, there were no lichenologists proper, and lichenology in Holland was sterile. Whereas in all other countries of Europe the description of new lichen genera and species was in full progress, and other branches connected with lichenology such as anatomy, morphology, ecology, Physiology, and chemistry were being studied, there was an almost complete standstill in the Netherlands which hardly could be made up for by a single outstanding systematical (E. T. Nannenga, 1939) or physiological Paper (A. Quispel, 1943). Of late, however, a revived interest and a determined desire on the part of some sociologists getting more familiar with lichens is apt to brighten up this somewhat gloomy picture.