8o St. John, Notes on the " River White Gum." [^ Aug^sf ' 



and says : — " E. radiata, Sieber, appears to be nothing more or 

 less than a form of E. amygdalina, Labill., very common in 

 New South Wales, and I see nothing distinctive enough to 

 warrant its being called a variety. The typical amygdalina 

 from Tasmania, with its linear-lanceolate, often thickish, 

 leaves, with hemispherical opercula and hemispherical, usually 

 broad-rimmed fruit, doubtless appeared to Sieber to be 

 sufficiently different from the New South Wales form. Sieber's 

 type probably came from the higher parts of the Blue Mountains 

 (I have matched it completely from the Wentworth Falls to 

 Mount Victoria). The specimens distributed by Sieber have 

 fruits not dead ripe. When they are quite ripe the tips of 

 the valves are slightly exserted." 



On page 155, in dealing with variety numerosa {E. amygdalina, 

 Labill., var. radiata, Benth.), he states: — "The Rev. Dr. 

 WooUs * (and on other occasions) protested against E. radiata, 

 Sieb. (as he understood the species), being merged in with E. 

 amygdalina. It will, however, remain an open question with 

 some botanists as to whether this form is looked upon as a 

 variety or as an independent species. It certainlj^ is closely 

 related to E. amygdalina, and different authors hold different 

 views as to the amount of variation necessary to constitute a 

 species ; so that, as far as aboriginal and vernacular names 

 are concerned, it is the ' Kayer-ro ' of Sir Wm. Macarthur, 

 the ' White Gum ' of Bent's Basin and the Nepean (Woolls, 

 Benth. " Fl.," iii., 203), and the ' Wang-gnara ' of Mr. Howitt. 

 It goes under the names of ' River White Gum,' ' Ribbon Gum,' 

 and also ' Narrow-leaved Peppermint.' " 



It will be observed that, although Maiden says on one page 

 that he sees nothing distinctive enough to warrant its being 

 called a variety, yet later on he admits that it will remain an 

 open question with some botanists, and merely contends that 

 it certainly is closely related to E. amygdalina. 



Already varieties d and / — namely, E. dives, Schauer, and 

 E. regnans, F. v. M., respectively, as mentioned by Howitt, 

 are now adopted as distinct species. In my opinion, there 

 is at least equal reason for raising E. radiata, Sieber, to specific 

 rank, and the main differences between it and E. amygdalina, 

 Labill., may be briefly summarized as follows : — 



Bark. — 



E. amygdalina has a " box-like " E. radiata has a rough base, then 



bark, fibrous and persistent, not a smooth, white bark. " Leio- 



so fibrous as a " stringybark." phloiae " section. 

 " Hemiphloise " section. 



* Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., v., 448. 



