Edvard August Vainio

Early in his career, with the help of grants from the university, Vainio made several scientific expeditions abroad.[20] In 1880, accompanying Swedish physician and explorer Ernst Almquist, he investigated the eastern slopes of the Middle Urals in western Siberia.[41] These included the Konda River area extending from the river Irtysh to Lake Satyga. The results of this botanical excursion were not published until almost 50 years later.[34] In 1882, he took trips to Berlin and Rostock to botanical museums and herbaria to study the Cladonia specimens located there; and in 1884–1885 to botanical museums in Moscow, Vienna, Geneva, Paris, and London.[42] It was during a second trip to Paris in 1889–1890 that he would meet his future wife.[43]

During his time in the Caraça Mountains, Vainio stayed at the Santuário do Caraça, shown here. The Pico do Sol is the highest peak in the upper right.

Vainio was one of the first European lichenologists to perform field work in the tropics.[44] After being granted a stipend from the University, in 1885 Vainio undertook a year-long expedition to Brazil, collecting primarily lichens in the vicinity of Rio de Janeiro and in Minas Gerais. He spent some time initially in Sítio (now known as Antônio Carlos), and then in Lafayette (now Conselheiro Lafaiete). Many of his type specimens were collected from these locations.[45] He wrote favourably of the conditions there: "Sítio was a very convenient place for my work: it offered opportunities to study the plant life in the forests as well as in the grasslands. The dryness of the air was also favorable for getting my specimens properly (pressed) and dried."[46] In Rio de Janeiro, Vainio met the French botanist, and later landscape designer for Brazilian royalty, Auguste François Marie Glaziou, who advised him on possible travel routes.[47] It was also during this initial part of the trip that he met a French naturalist named Germain, with whom he had several collecting excursions. Germain advised Vainio against travelling via his originally intended route, and convinced him instead to visit the biodiverse Caraça Mountains, north of Ouro Branco. It was here that the Caraça sanctuary was located, a monastery where Germain himself had stayed, and which welcomed scientists as guests.[48] Some of the monks residing there were interested in science and collected insects and plants.[49] The monastery had a large library, including works on the local flora, such as Carl Friedrich Philipp von Martius' influential work Flora Brasiliensis. The French entomologist Pierre-Émile Gounelle stayed at the monastery while Vainio was there, and some of their collecting work was done together.[48]

Vainio's tools for fieldwork in Brazil included a knife, hammer, chisel, paper, and a bag. He also carried a shotgun for protection against jaguars.[45] In one of his later collecting trips in the Caraça Mountains, Vainio ventured out alone to the highest peak of the eastern mountain ranges, the Pico do Sol—2,107 m (6,913 ft).[50] Because of his relatively poor knowledge of the terrain, he misjudged the distances involved as well as the amount of available daylight. He ended up spending a night in a wet, sandfly-infested cave without food, water, or a way to make fire.[48] It was only the next morning he was able to find a stream to quench his extreme thirst, and not until the afternoon, when, exhausted, he eventually found his way back to the monastery. During his week-long recovery, one of the monks had to extract sandfly larvae from large bulges on the back of his neck.[50] By the end of his time in Caraça, he had collected a large volume of specimens.[51] Vainio went on to Rio de Janeiro, making excursions to coastal areas such as Niterói, the Tijuca mountains, and the Sepetiba region. With the permission of museum director Ladislau de Souza Mello Netto, Vainio studied at the National Museum of Brazil.[51] Vainio returned from Brazil with about 1600 samples packed in five large crates. Vainio worked with this material in Helsinki for the next few years; the material he collected was so abundant that during a few months of study in Paris during 1889–1890, he issued "Lichenes brasilienses exsiccati", a set of 1593 exsiccatae (dried herbarium specimens) distributed in eight copies.[52]

Cover of Vainio's 1888 popular travel account Matkustus Brasiliassa. Kuvaus luonnostaja kansoista Brasiliassa

In addition to his scholarly work published later, Vainio published in Finnish a popular account of his travels in Brazil, Matkustus Brasiliassa. Kuvaus luonnosta ja kansoista Brasiliassa ("Travels in Brazil. A Description of Nature and Travels in Brazil") (1888).[44] This book combines a description of his travel adventures with a folkloric account of Brazil, its flora and fauna, and its inhabitants.[53] Vainio does not indicate in this book nor in his later scholarly work the reason for visiting Brazil in the first place. German botanist Fritz Mattick suggests that the idea may have originated from the fact that a number of botanists from the Nordic countries had lived in the interior of Minas Gerais, including Danish naturalist Peter Wilhelm Lund, who lived in Lagoa Santa and made palaeontological discoveries in the nearby limestone caves; and Danish botanists Peter Clausen and his assistant Eugenius Warming. Cladonia specimens that were collected by Warming are mentioned in Vainio's monograph.[53]

In 1887, Vainio published the first of his three-volume monograph on Cladonia, titled Monographia Cladoniarum universalis ("Universal Monograph on Cladonia"); the final volume was published in 1897.[28] This was an extensive work written in Latin, totalling 1277 pages, on all aspects of this group of lichens. It included descriptions of species old and new, analysis of species synonymy, distribution records, and detailed analysis of the structure and development of the Cladoniae. The publication of just the first volume had already secured Vainio's reputation as a prominent lichenologist.[54] This major work was later judged to be the best work during this era in the field of lichen research.[55] As an indication of the accuracy and reliability of Vainio's work, a 1998 study showed that of the 18 new Cladonia species he described from Brazil a century before, 16 were still considered valid species.[56]

Vainio also published several works based on analysis of collections made by others. For example, Vainio processed and identified lichens collected from tropical Africa by explorers and botanists Friedrich Welwitsch and Hans Schinz.[57] He assumed responsibility for the European collections of Hungarian botanist Hugó Lojka after he died at a relatively young age.[58] In 1899, after the death of William Nylander, his numerous collections were transferred from Paris to the University of Helsinki, where it was Vainio's responsibility to arrange and catalogue them: they contained a total of 51,066 specimens.[54] Although his relationship with the university was strained at the time, there was no-one else qualified for the job.[59] Similarly, Vainio published works based on collections he was sent from Puerto Rico,[60] Japan,[61][62] Thailand,[63] Tahiti,[64] and Trinidad,[65] among other locations.

In some instances, his studies of material sent to him by other scientists greatly advanced the knowledge of the local flora from where they were sent. For example, Vainio was sent for identification the collections of Portuguese botanist and army doctor Américo Pires de Lima, who made them as part of a military campaign in Mozambique during 1916–1917. Vainio's results were published posthumously;[66] of the 138 taxa he identified, about half were previously unknown to science.[67] In another instance, Vainio identified the lichens collected by Ernst Almquist from the Vega Expedition of 1878–1880 through the Arctic coast of Eurasia; about 100 species were previously unknown.[68] As a result of scientific investigations initiated by the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, American and Filipino botanists surveyed the flora of the Philippines, gathering a large amount of lichens in the process. This material was organized by Elmer Drew Merrill who sent it to Vainio for identification. This collaboration ultimately resulted in almost 500 pages of text over four publications from 1909 to 1923. Vainio described 92 genera and 680 species; almost two-thirds of the species were previously unknown. Before these publications, only about 30 lichen species had been documented in the country.[69]

As the culmination of his studies in Brazil, in 1890 Vainio published Etude sur la classification naturelle et la morphologie des lichens du Brésil ("Study on the natural classification and the morphology of the lichens of Brazil") in Latin with an introduction in French. This 526-page work dealt with 516 species, of which 240 were new to science.[54] The Brazilian taxa were distributed amongst 78 genera (12 of which were described as new), the most well-represented of which included Lecidea (68 species), Graphis (43), Parmelia (39), Lecanora (33), Arthonia (25), and Buellia (19). The genus Cladonia was not included, as he reserved it for his monograph on the subject.[70] Vainio discussed the general theory of lichens in the introduction of his work, supporting Simon Schwendener's then-controversial theory that lichens were the result of a symbiotic union between fungus and alga.[54] Vainio advocated including the lichens in the general classification of the fungi. He argued that lichens are a polyphyletic group, with only one uniting characteristic—the symbiosis—distinguishing them from the ascomycetes and other fungi.[71]

Vainio's work was intended to be a thesis submission for the post of Associate Professor at the University of Helsinki, a position he applied for in writing in the autumn of 1888.[4] His early mentor Norrlin had obtained a similar position in 1878, which perhaps inspired Vainio to make the application.[72] Because the department Chair, Sextus Otto Lindberg, did not trust his Finnish-language skills sufficiently to be able to judge the merits of Vainio's work, other opinions were sought, and so in addition to William Nylander, Theodor Magnus Fries and Johann Müller were recruited.[73]

Most prominent contemporary lichenologists, including Müller and Nylander, disagreed with the so-called "Schwendenerian hypothesis" and the dual nature of lichens.[74] Since they still subscribed to the belief that lichens were a plant group—rather than the fungus/alga symbiosis they are now known to be—they thought that Vainio's proposal to classify lichens with fungi was ridiculous.[75] Müller in particular published two articles that were highly critical of Vainio's conclusions in Études Brésil.[76][77] Vainio's relationship with Nylander had become strained since their successful collaborations years before. Nylander, in previous correspondence with Norrlin, expressed doubts about Vainio's decision to publish his early scientific works in Finnish instead of Latin, which was the norm in the international scientific community. He also questioned Lang's decision to change his name, writing "A most curious matter is also the disappearance of Mr Lang and the birth of Mr Wainio instead. This is a matter that may be possible and explainable in Finland (and unfortunate is that such is the situation) but in the common practical world, here in the logical humanity, such a thing is impossible even to mention without incurably injuring the person concerned."[30] Vainio, in correspondence with Johann Müller in 1889, wrote "it is perhaps necessary that the knowledge of my thesis remains between us, because there are people who lay very peculiar intrigues to prevent me from the professorship. Nylander has taken a stand as a very unscrupulous enemy against me and has taken up a very scandalous intrigue".[73]

Johannes Müller, William Nylander, and Theodor Magnus Fries were prominent botanists invited to comments on the merits of Vainio's research for his dissertation.

Nylander criticised and dismissed Vainio's thesis submission, claiming it had little scientific value. In contrast, Fries praised Vainio's work, and described him as one of the most competent contemporary lichenologists.[73] Johann Müller disagreed with most of Vainio's general conclusions, and thought that chemical reactions, a characteristic that Vainio emphasized, have only a physiological, not taxonomical, value.[78] Although Müller was public about his criticisms of Vainio's work, he did acknowledge his careful working method and anticipated that Vainio, "after return from wrong paths", would use his excellent observational skills in a systematically correct way in future research.[78] German lichenologist Ferdinand Christian Gustav Arnold, who was present at Vainio's public thesis defence, introduced himself as a supporter of Schwendener's theory, and indicated that Vainio's work was the first to create a consistent system for classification.[78]

Vainio did not receive the associate professorship for which he applied; the Department of Natural Sciences voted 4 to 3 against his application.[4] However, before an official announcement could even be drafted, Sextus Otto Lindberg died, leaving vacant the position of Professor of Botany. This gave Vainio the opportunity to apply for this job, for which he competed with the two other docents: Fredrik Elfving and Oswald Kairamo.[71] The Department ranked him third in order of merit.[4] Elfving was given the position; he later became known for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts.[79] Vainio's failure may have been because of his narrow, mainly lichen-focused field of expertise, his lack of teaching skills, and the personal resentments developed between Vainio and Nylander, as well as issues of language policy. Vainio championed Finnish interests and was a strong supporter of the Finnish language, but at that time Finland was still part of the Russian Empire and the position of the Finnish language in teaching was weak.[75] Suspecting that he had been discriminated against in the selection of a professor, Vainio appealed the decision, claiming that the expert opinions came from representatives of an "openly hostile" school that was predjudiced towards him, and further, that he was the only one of the applicants with the ability to lecture fluently in both Finnish and Swedish. He concluded that he had been rejected on political rather than scientific grounds, writing that the university "had sunk from the level of a learned establishment to that of an institution governed more by political than by academic considerations".[80] The university's position was that successful management of the professorship was more likely to be acheived by an applicant with a more general scientific background.[81] Norwegian botanist Per Magnus Jørgensen suggests that not only did Vainio's support of Schwendener's theory cost him a position as professor, but probably also influenced the choice of author for the lichen section of Adolf Engler and Karl Anton Eugen Prantl's influential monograph series Das Pflanzenreich—a job awarded to the then relatively unknown Austrian lichenologist Alexander Zahlbruckner.[82]

Vainio in his private study at the University of Turku Plant Museum, 1925

Finnish historian Timo Tarmio suggests that Vainio's failure to secure a professorship must have been a further blow to him personally because, like Norrlin, his older brother Joel Napoleon Lang had successfully pursued a university career as a professor in the Faculty of Law.[83] Unsuccessful in his bid for professorship, Vainio was convinced that a supporter of an independent Finland like him would never be elected to university duties.[42] Faced with the reality of securing stable employment to provide for his wife and four children,[84] Vainio accepted a job as a censor in the press service of Helsinki in 1891, a position in which he was appointed superintendent in 1901.[42] It was during this time that the Russian Empire pursued the policy of Russification (a process in which non-Russian communities involuntarily or voluntarily give up their culture and language in favour of Russian culture), a mandate carried out by the polarizing figure Governor-General Nikolay Bobrikov.[83] His decision to work for the loathed Board of Press Censorship led to him becoming a pariah amongst his colleagues and compatriots.[39] For example, despite their innovativeness and importance, Vainio's early publications on phytogeography in the border regions of northeast Finland and Russian Karelia were rarely cited by his Finnish colleagues, largely for political reasons.[27] Another source suggests that resentment amongst his colleagues was stoked by his publication of the first Finnish-language dissertation.[75] Although Vainio agonized over the social disapproval caused by his employment, he defiantly hid his distress.[85]

Vainio lost the subsidy associated with his docentship in 1894.[86] Shortly after the turn of the century, when Finland's constitutional struggle dominated the political landscape, students refused to enrol in his course as a form of protest against his chosen profession.[87] Vainio was subsequently obliged to suspend his teaching position.[39] With this background, Runar Collander has suggested that Vainio showed poor judgement in applying once more, in the spring of 1901, for the position of Associate Professor.[86] The Department's response was unequivocal:

"An indispensable necessity for the successful progress of the work of the University is that it should be carried on in a spirit of free and independent inquiry. The system of preventative censorship, particularly in the form it has been taken lately, is completely contrary to this spirit. The University must accordingly avoid having any dealing with those concerned in applying it. So firm is the public conscience of the country on this point, that any compromise on the part of the University would have a damaging effect on its own reputation. Further proof of these feelings can be found in the fact that Dr. Wainio has been without pupils during the present term. The reply to Dr. Wainio's ... application can therefore only be that the Department's concern for the reputation of the University, and its conception of the ideals for which the University should stand, are in themselves sufficient grounds for asserting that the qualifications of Dr. Wainio, notwithstanding the value of his scientific writings, are not such as to justify the Department recommending him for the post of Associate Professor."[86]

After Finland gained independence in 1917 and press censorship was terminated, Vainio was left without work and without a pension at the age of 64. Forced to live on modest savings, he continued his lichenological studies. Vainio transferred his microscope and part of his library to the botanical institution of the university, where he spent much of his time for the next couple of years.[39]

Vainio's fortunes improved in 1918, as the Turku Finnish University Society bought his herbarium collection of about 22,000 specimens for 60,000 FIM (equivalent to about €27,500 in 2019).[note 3] The society was organizing a new university at Turku, which was then the second-largest city in Finland after Helsinki. Teaching and administration were to be wholly in the Finnish language, in contrast with the University of Helsinki, which taught both in Swedish and Finnish and used Swedish as the language of administration.[89] The transaction was subject to the condition that Vainio himself would be responsible for organizing and increasing the collection in museum condition, and would participate in teaching if necessary.[89][90] As an ardent Finnish nationalist, Vainio was pleased with the arrangement and joined the payroll of the Turku University Society under the title of custodian of the collections of the Department of Botany in 1920, two years before the start of the university's teaching activities and the transfer of his collection to Turku.[91] He moved to Turku and the university's main building on the edge of the market square in the former Phoenix Hotel when teaching began in 1922.[90] Although only offered a modest yearly salary to organize the specimens, he carried out this task with great devotion.[92] He obtained this job—his only permanent teaching position—at 69 years of age, and held it until his death.[84] His living conditions, however, remained so modest that his wife and family were unable to visit him in Turku, and their visits were limited to his vacations in Helsinki.[52] To optimize the productivity of his holiday time, he would take the evening train from Turku to Helsinki, and could be found the next morning in the lichen department of the Helsinki Plant Museum.[93]

The Hotel Phoenix building, shown here in 1908, became the administrative centre for the University as well as Vainio's residence in Turku.

In 1921, at the instigation of Alvar Palmgren,[94] Vainio was commissioned by the Societas pro Fauna et Flora Fennica to continue work on Lichenographia Fennica, a seven-part book series about Finnish lichens. Vainio had already published the first volume dealing with "Pyrenolichens" in 1921.[31] Knowing that because of his age he had only limited time left to complete a multi-volume series, he started work on the harder groups, confident that in the event of his death the easier groups could be handled by other researchers.[75] This book series became an important resource for the study of the lichen flora of all Northern Europe.[95]

Starting in 1922, Vainio taught as an assistant professor at the University of Turku, and headed the cryptogamic herbarium at the university.[92] His teaching consisted of courses in plant systematics, and organized field trips with students.[95] This field work he continued until 1927, leading a class expedition to a small island in Lake Ladoga.[96] During his time at the University of Turku, the collections expanded to 35,000 samples, a result of additions from local excursions, and collections sent from abroad.[92] Vainio also advised Kaarlo Linkola and Veli Räsänen, two of his younger colleagues.[96] He was granted a state pension in recognition of his services to science (on the recommendation of the University of Turku and the Societas pro Fauna et Flora Fennica) while on his deathbed.[97]

Vainio's final work, the fourth volume of the Lichenographia Fennica, was left uncompleted on his worktable because of his death. His last entry was to name and describe Lecidea keimioeënsis (collected by Linkola in Keimiötunturi) as a new species, when his illness suddenly forced him to stop work and hurry to the hospital.[98] Started by Vainio in 1924, the fourth volume was completed posthumously by Norwegian lichenologist Bernt Lynge in 1934.[99]

Five genera are named after Vainio, although most of these eponyms are now obsolete:[3]

• Vainiona Werner (1943) (= Cercidospora[139])
• Vainionia Räsänen (1943) (= Calicium[140])
• Vainionora Kalb (1991)[141]
• Wainioa Nieuwl. (1916) (= Byssoloma[142])
• Wainiocora Tomas. (1950) (= Cora[143])

Many species have also been named to honour Vainio. These include:[107] Teichospora wainioi P.Karst. (1884); Nectriella vainioi P.Karst. (1889); Meliola wainioi Pat. (1890); Filaspora wainionis Kuntze (1898); Clathroporina wainiana Zahlbr. (1902); Cladonia wainioi Savicz (1914); Physcia wainioi Räsänen (1921); Opegrapha wainioi Zahlbr. (1923); Pannaria wainioi Zahlbr. (1925); Rhizocarpon vainioense Lynge (1926); Peltigera vainioi Gyeln. (1929); Pannaria vainioi C.W.Dodge (1933); Usnea vainioi Motyka (1936); Nesolechia vainioana Räsänen (1939); Calicium vainioanum Nádv. (1940); Melanotheca vainioensis Werner (1944); Lecidea vainioi H.Magn. (1949); Tricharia vainioi R.Sant. (1952);[144] Candelariella vainioana Hakul. (1954); Caloplaca vainioi Hafellner & Poelt (1979); Lecanora vainioi Vänskä (1986); Gyalideopsis vainioi Kalb & Vězda (1988);[145] Bulbothrix vainioi Jungbluth, Marcelli & Elix (2008);[146] Hypotrachyna vainioi Sipman, Elix & T.H.Nash (2009); and Coppinsidea vainioana S.Y.Kondr., E.Farkas & L.Lőkös (2019).[147]