BY HENRY DEANE AXD J. H. MAIDEX. 785 



-£". piperita and E. pilularis. — In the Eucalyjitor/rapliia under 

 E. piliilai'is Mueller lays emphasis on the globular fruits of E- 

 piperita in contradistinction to those of E.piluluris. The matter 

 is referred to at page 788. 



In White's Journal (1790), p. 226 is a figure of the " Pepper- 

 mint tree " referred to as E. piperita. The fruits and the twig 

 of leaves (no buds, flowers, etc.) are separate. The fruits figui'ed 

 are " what Mr. White has sent as the ripe capsules of this tree, 

 ttc." They belong to the species now known as E. capitellata. 

 The description of the tree is " Bark smooth and of a reddish- 

 brown. The leaves are alternate, lanceolate, pointed, very entire, 

 .smooth on both sides and remarkably unequal, or oblique at their 

 base; the veins alternate and not very conspicuous. The whole 

 surface of both sides of the leaves is marked with numerous 

 minute I'esinous spots in which the essential oil resides." 



The description of the bark probably refers to Ancjopliora 

 lanceolata; that of the leaves probably to E. pi'perita. We say 

 probably because even at the present day it is frequently impos- 

 sible to identify a species of Eucalyptus from description of leaves 

 only. It was published in 1790, and still remains a good model 

 description of a Eucalyptus leaf. 



E. piperita and E. amycjdaJina have some affinity in regard to 

 the odours of their leaves (owing to the presence of essential oil) 

 which are somewhat similar. E. jnperita also contains more oil 

 than the generality of species, though much less than that of E. 

 amygdalina. The botanical relations of the two species are not 

 close. For a note on the similarity in shape of the fruits of a 

 small-fruited form of E.jnperita and of E. amygdalina var. radiata 

 see page 781. 



E. piff-rita and E. ohliqua. — We mention these two sjjecies 

 together because the}' are so referred to in Eucalyptogra'plda, but 

 we would point out that they have really very little in common. 

 Reference to the shape of the buds, the venation of the leaves, 

 and the coarseness of the foliage of E. ohliqua alone show that 

 the two species have no close affinity. 



