OF CEYLON AND INDIA. 
307 
surface, and Trimen describes the flabelliform apices, 
though he did not notice their leaves. Warming’s account 
of this species (42, IV.), though correct enough in its descrip- 
tion of the facts observed, suffers from this lack of complete 
material ; he had only the central flowering part of a thallus 
to deal with. Upon this there are no leaves borne directly, 
and hence Warming writes “le thalle ne porte pas directe- 
ment de feuilles, ce qui indique que c’est une racine étalée 
en forme de thalle crustacé.” Eoots of this form are not 
uncommon in the order, e.g.^ in Hydrobryum, and there is 
almost literally nothing to distinguish the central part of 
the thallus of Lawia from a “ root ” thallus. Warming’s 
account does not deal with the life-history or with the 
growth and development of the thallus. In the same paper 
he also deals with a specimen of L. longipes or foliosa 
collected at Khandala in the Bhor Ghat by Goebel (13), who 
has himself also described it. Here the incompleteness of 
the description is in the other direction ; only the growing 
point was examined, and not the older parts of the plant, 
and it was at once evident that the thallus was of stem 
nature. In reality both thalli are to all intents alike, but the 
difference between the apical and the central parts is so 
great that it is impossible to understand the morphology of 
the plant without seeing a complete specimen. In his 
sixth paper Prof. Warming has suggested that the L. zey- 
lanica forms should be generically separated from the L. 
foliosa forms on the ground of their thallus morphology, 
but it will be seen below that this proposal rests on incom- 
plete knowledge of the entire plants. 
Lawia ^eySaiiica, TuL 
(Plates IX.-XIII.) 
My studies of this species have been made at Hakinda 
and other places in Ceylon, and at Igatpuri and Khandala in 
the Bombay Ghats, while I am also indebted to Mr. 0. A. 
Barber for much valuable material from many places in 
(42) 
