94 Ewart and White: 



Lower leaves well developed, rather large, in fine specimens 

 about 3 lines in diameter, rosulate, orbicular, not peltate. 

 Stem leaves situated usually in grouiDs of three, of which one is 

 larger and has a much longer pedicel than the other two, the 

 smaller leaves being about 1 line in diameter, the larger 2 to 2J 

 lines, all with long marginal glandular hairs, and the stem 

 leaves ver}^ slightly angled. Pedicels slender and from i to J 

 inch in the lower leaves, and f to 1 inch long in the larger 

 stem leaves. Stipules absent. 



Flowers, several, situated on a loose cyme, peduncles as long 

 or longer than the flowers, and slightly hairy. Sepals 5, free, 

 except at the base, somewhat hairy, about 1 line long. Petals 

 5, free, pink or red, about twice the length of the sepals. 



Stamens 5, anthers 2-celled and almost circular. Ovary com- 

 paratively large, style much divided into numerous dichotomous 

 branches. 



Cowcowing, W. Australia, Max Koch, 1904. No. 1106 (with 

 the unpublished manuscript name, D. Andersoniana, W. Y. 

 Fitzgerald). 



Although the plant bears some resemblance to Drosera 

 2)enici1laris, Benth. {D. Driimmondii, Planch.), it is easily 

 distinguished by the basal leaves, non-flexuose stem, and 

 dichotomously divided styles. The size of the leaves readily 

 separates it from D. Menziesii, R. Br., and D. jnacrantJia, Endl. 

 Investigations upon the amount and degree of variation in the 

 character and brandling of the styles in the genus Drosera would 

 be of great value. It is possible that too much importance is 

 attached to this feature in the classification of species. 



Euphorbia Duummondii, Boiss. (Euphorbiaceae). 

 This little weed, spread over the whole of Australia and 

 Tasmania, is endemic to Australia, and though very common, 

 does not appear to Jiave 1)een figured. As noted by Bentham, 

 the plant, apart from its glabrous character, bears a strong- 

 resemblance to E. chauKusyce, L. Owing to a typographical 

 error, this name is given in Bentham's Flora Australiensis 

 (vi., p. 49) as E. cliamaesgee^ which is repeated in the Ivew 

 Index as E. clumiaesgec. Mueller (Native Plants of Victoria, 

 p. 105) suggests that E. Drummondii may be a variety only of 



