I ^ 



^^^ Lr.oYD : Two Species of Lycopodium 



obstacles, tluis becoming exposed to the light. This difference of 

 habit in respect to position was also recorded by C. F. Austin in a 

 note in his writing attached to the sheet upon which is mounted a 

 specimen of L. chaiiiaccypayissus collected by him in Bero-cn 



J 



A 



habit, on the part of L. chamaccYpcxrissiis, of producing annual 

 growths at the ends of the branchlcts. These \\c\w growths arc more 

 or less orthotropic, according as the habitat is exposed or shaded, 

 and usually make angles with the earlier growth. This Is espe- 

 cially noticeable as the aerial stems of the plant are frequently long 

 and weak, allowing the weight of the foliage, which is often great, to 

 force them out of their original vertical position, to make angles with 

 the previous years' growths. There is thus produced a curious and 

 distinctive habit which is in marked contrast with that of Z. coin- 

 planatnm In which the branchlcts arc plagiotropic, and do not 

 produce annual Innovations except very occasionally, and then 

 only short Imperfect growths, which cannot at all be compared 

 with the vigorous unfailing annual growth of /.. chamaccyparissus. 

 Correlated with the more vertical habit of Z. chamaccyparissus 

 is the less pronounced dorsivcntral character of the more distal 

 branches and the similarity in form of th •' - eaves. Here the 

 leaves of the morphological under side of the branches are scarcely 

 different In their amount of development from those of the upper 

 side, while in L. complanatum they are so reduced that only their 

 apices, abruptly spreading from the concave lower side of the 

 branchlet, remain in evidence. This spreading character is common 

 to all the leaves of L. complanatum while In L. chamaccyparissus the 

 apices of the leaves of the lateral and under rows are apprcssed', 

 so much so that those of the leaves of the lateral rows 

 underneath the flattened lower side of the branchlet. 



In addition to these external leaf characters is to be added the 

 glaucous character of L. chamaccyparissus, as compared with the 

 absence of this character in L. complanatum. I have noticed that 

 specimens of the former plant keep tlieir moisture some time 

 longer than do specimens of the latter, though I cannot give pre- 

 cise data on this point. 



Nor are the differences wholly confined to the external and 



curve \w 



