BY J. H. MAIDEN. 27 



man who first used it. Botanical history teems with such 

 examples, and it was immaterial whether a description was 

 fixrnished or not. In the present case, "R. T. B. and 

 H. G. S." did not first employ the name, Perriniana, and 

 Ihey should not assume it. 



4. E. coriacea A. Cunn. {E . jMehophylla F.v.M.) 



If my readers will turn to p. 136, Part v. of my Critical 

 Revision, they will see that I have given the detailed his- 

 tory of E. phlehophylhi F.v.M., which Messrs. Baker and 

 Smith at p. 165 of their paper desire to restore for the Tas- 

 manian tree hitherto named E. coriacea. The type came 

 from Mt. Aberdeen, a peak of the Buffalo Range, Victoria, 

 and Stuart's Tasmanian specimen was a co-type. I cannot 

 tell the difference between the Victorian Alps (Mt. Aber- 

 deen) specimens, those from Tasmania and those from New 

 South Wales. Nor could Mueller, nor any later botanist. 

 I do not see the point of the statement that "In all proba- 

 "bility Mueller had not seen specimens of E. coriacea when 



""he described his species in conjunction with Miquel " 



It may also be pointed out that the species {phlehophylla) 

 was not a joint one by Miquel and Mueller. It is Mueller's, 

 who, after the fashion of the time, sent descriptions to 

 Europe to a distinguished botanist for publication. 



Speaking of the field characters of E. phlehophylla the 

 "Weeping or Cabbage Gum," the authors (p. 166) quote 

 Hooker that it has "generally spreading limbs and weeping 

 "branches, and branchlets that hang down 10 or 12 feet, 

 "and gives the height from 40 to 50 feet." They add that 

 "E. coriacea lias not this field character, but is a tall, up- 

 "standing tree with large spreading branches." 



Incidentally it may be mentioned that Mr. Rodway's 

 label on a specimen of his own collecting is "erect tall tree, 

 "Chudleigh, Dec, 1909." 



As a matter of fact, over large areas in New South Wales, 

 the description of the Tasmanian tree exactlv applies, and 

 it is often called "Weeping Gum'' in New South Wales. 



I have again examined Tasmanian specimens of this 

 species and cannot see that they differ in any important 

 character from E. coriacea A. Cunn. 



Habit is a variable thing, and should be used with the 

 greatest precaution as a factor to constitute species. An 

 instance taken at random is the "Weeping Box" or "Mac- 

 kenzie River Box" of Queensland which is ^. 7neIanophJoia, 

 but it cannot be separated from the Ironbai'k of the dis- 

 trict, which is also E. melanophloia. 



