668 FLORA OF AUSTRALIA, 



light-coloured. These characters alone are sufficient in my opinion 

 to warrant a separation of the trees, and one could never put 

 such Museum specimens possessing diametrically opposite 

 characters (given above) under the same specific name with any 

 degree of correctness. 



That Mueller had the Victorian tree in his mind's eye is shown 

 by his many references to his E. Stuartiana as a tree closely 

 allied to, if not the same species as E. pulverulenta, Sims, for in 

 his " Eucalyptographia " he states : — " E. pulverulenta is distin- 

 guished from E. Stuartiana only in its foliage . . . the bark 

 of E. Stuartiana and E. pulverulenta are very much alike." 

 Such statements can only apply to the Victorian Eucalypt, as 

 there is no resemblance in E. Bridgesiana to E. pulverulenta. 

 Mr. A. W. Howitt, a co-worker with Mueller in the Eucalypts 

 and one who collected the original material, holds that it was the 

 Victorian Apple on which E. Stuartina was founded. Messrs. 

 Deane and Maiden state (loc. cit. ) that they recently proceeded to 

 the National Herbarium to study the specimens there and to 

 confer with the Curator, Mr. J. G. Luehmann, long Baron von 

 Mueller's principal assistant, and one who knows best the late 

 botanist s view on this and many other points. After carefully 

 investigating the matter they saw no reason to refrain from 

 accepting the plate in the "Eucalyptographia" as faithfully 

 depicting E. Stuartiana. I hold this is an instance where some- 

 thing more than dried specimens are required to determine species; 

 and my contention, supported by Bentham and Woolls, is that in 

 many instances Eucalypts cannot be determined on herbarium 

 material; and in this connection one or two examples might be 

 quoted. For instance, the names E. largiflorens and E. bicolor 

 are now always synonymised as though they referred to one and 

 the same tree. In the venation of the leaves there is a resem- 

 blance, but that is all, for in no other respect are they similar, 

 and no one acquainted with the trees in the field could confound 

 them {vide note under E. bicohr, A. Cunn., in this paper, p. 664). 

 Then again on morphological grounds it was common until 



