Eucatyptuus Polyhractea. 149 



E. fruticetorum, F. v. M.. is glaucous, and is so very close to 

 E. celastroides, Tuicz.. that I think its proper place is under E. 

 calycoffona, Turcz.. var. celastroides, Maiden. 



The E. gracilis, F. v. M., figured by Muellei- in the Encalypt- 

 ographia, is not typical E. calycogoita. but in part a slightly angled 

 form nearest to E. frnticeforum." 



Again (loc. cit.). Part iv., issued 1904, he states: — " Tliis is (as 

 regards the Westei-n Austialian specimens) identical witli E. loxo- 

 phleba, Benth.. (B. Fl.. iii.. 252). I have shown (Part iii.. p. 80 

 of this woi-k) tliat E. fnificeloniin is a synonym of E. vnhjvoiiona, 

 Turcz." 



In 1904 the same authm-. Pioc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.. p. 761. under 

 E. odorata, Behr. gives: ''E. cajnputed. V. v. M.. syn. E. poly- 

 hractea, K.T.B." 



Ibid. p. 763. — " Indeed, botli it (E . ararioides. A. Cunn.) and 

 E. cajriputea (E. polyhractea) are closely related, and l)oth have 

 close affinity to E. odorafa." 



Obid. p. 765.— Under E. Woolhiann, R.H.B.. states :—" Of the 

 identity of E. cajuputen and E. polyhractea, I liave little or no 

 doubt." 



Ibid, p. 765. — " For example, Dombey Bay, S.A.. specimens 

 show the very great difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, of separat- 

 ing E. cajuputea from the Green Mallee (E . viridis) and from the 

 Blue Mallee (E . polyhractea)." 



In 1910, by the same author', in his " Critical Revision of the 

 Genus Eucalyptus," vol. ii., p. 40-41, it is placed as a synonym of 

 E. frvticetorum, F. v. M., the article finishing up with these words : 

 — " The type specimen (of E . fruticetorum) seems to have been 

 lost. I made a personal search in the Melbourne Herbarium for 

 it, with the kind help of Prof. Ewart, and no trace of it can be 

 found at Kew, so Colonel Prain is good enough to tell me. There 

 is no good reason to doubt the correctness of Mueller's determina- 

 tion of this character specimen of his own species." 



In the same work, vol. i., p. 79. Miieller's MS. description of 

 E. fruticetorum is given, but this is too meagre upon which to 

 place any systematic work. 



Now, Bentham, Flora Australiensis iii.. p. 252. places this 

 species {E. frvticetorum) undei- E. loxophleha, Benth., which 

 Maiden, loc. cit.. vol. i.. p. 112, places under E. foecunda, Sch., 

 and later, p. 119. remarks^" E. fruticetorum, F. v. M., Frag, ii., 

 p. 57. This (as regards the Western Australian specimen) is iden- 

 tical Avith E. loxophelha, Benth. I have shown (Part iii.. p. 80. of 



