26 NOTES ON SOME TASMANIAN EUCALYPTS, 



of mine on a New South Wales specimen of Mr. Baker's 

 E. jjaludosa is, "fibrous at butt — a white gum." I know 

 both trees, and at different times would describe them 

 sirr.ilaiiy. 



(b) Hooker says of acervula "trunk erect, often lofty." 

 Personally, I have not been able to see an}'^ diflference be- 

 tween E. acervula and E. imludoiia in habit. 



(c) It requires long experience of timber workers to de- 

 cide the relative merits of two timbers grown in different 

 States. 



(d) Some difference is to be looked for, and the value 

 -of the difference can only be ascertained after careful 

 examination of the products of many trees. 



2. E. linearis Dehn., non A. Cunn. (Baker and 

 Smith's paper, p. 157). 



E. linearis Dehn., in Rodways Tasmanian Flora, p. 56. 

 I invite those who desire to follow the history of this 

 species to read the information I have laboi'iously collected 

 at p. 168, part vi. of my Critical Revision. I do not see 

 "what justification there is for cancelling Dehnhardt's name, 

 giving A. Cunningham as the author. Indeed, Messrs. Bak- 

 er and Smith say, "It is stated " (by me J.H.M.) "that A. 

 "Cunningham collected specimens and labelled them 'E. 

 " 'linearis, Hobart Town, 1819, A. Cunn.,' in which case it 

 "might be surmised that this is the tree, but this is only 



"a surmise " Then why add, " we have de- 



"cided to let the name stand, but give the authorship to 

 "A. Cunningham " This lofty action is unneces- 

 sary, and complicates nomenclature without advantage. 



3. E. Perriniana F.v.M. 



This is given as above by Baker and Smith in their 

 Fesearr// on the Encali/pts, but E. Perriniana R. T. B. 

 and H. G. S. at p. 163 of the present paper. It is E. 

 ■Gunnii Hook. f. var : glauca Deane and Maiden which I 

 will re-examine when I revise E. Gunnii for my Critical 

 Revision. 



Ewart (Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict. x.wi.. 3, 1913) suggests tliat 

 the author should be Kodway. according to the Rules of 

 the International Botanical Congress. I suggest, with Rod- 

 way, that since Mueller first suggested the name, he should 

 be given the credit of it. 



Where a name has once been used by an author, prior to 

 the promulgation of the above Rules (Vienna, 1905), it has 

 been the recognised pi-actice to give the authorship to the 



