BY HENRY DEANE AND J. H. MAIDEN. 543 



A paper by J. H. Maiden and R. T. Baker in Proc. Linn. Soc. 

 N.S.W. [2], viii., 312, may be here referred to, as the affinity of 

 E. propinqua to E. saliyna is there shown. E. p7'"pinqua is, in 

 that paper, looked upon as a variety of E. saligna. 



As regards E. punctata and E. propinqua, the timber and bark 

 of the two species resemble each other a good deal; they may be, 

 for all practical purposes, identical. They also agree in the 

 flattened peduncles and the stamens (points of resemblance, how- 

 ever, not peculiar to these two species). 



Differences. — They differ in the size of the flower-buds and 

 fruits, which in E. prophiqica are quite small; E. jji-opiiiqua has 

 narrow lanceolate leaves and also has more parallel and less 

 prominent lateral veins than E. punctata. The calyx-tube and 

 also the operculum of E. propinqua are more distinctly hemis- 

 pherical and its flowers more pedicellate. 



The fruit of E. punctata^ though variable in size, is always 

 larger and more cylindrical than that of E. propinqua. 



We are fully aware that E. punctata., as at present defined, is 

 a somewhat unsatisfactory species, and it is our intention to fully 

 deal with the matter, in its proper order, in the series of Notes 

 on New South Wales Eucalypts which we will shortly commence 

 to submit to the Society. 



Range. — From the Hawkesbury River northwards at least as 

 far as the Tweed River. We have no evidence yet as to whether 

 it extends to Queensland, but it very probably does. Going west 

 it has been found on the eastern slopes of the Dividing Range. 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE. 



Fig. L — Two twigs, showing variation in width of leaves. 



Fig. 2.— Part of a leaf, showing venation, and also slight recurving of edge. 



Fig. 3.— Vertical section of a bud. 



Fig. 4. — ,, ,, of an expanded flower. 



Fig. 5. — Front and back view of anther. 



Fig. 6. — Individual fruits. 



