BY J. H. MAIDEN. 29 



8. E. unialota Baker and Smith (E. viminalis Labill., 

 var. macrocar/ja Rodway). 



While in 1902, I had considered this a form of E. 

 Maideni, I had dropped this view in Froc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 

 XXX., 499 (1905), and my three years later opinion should 

 have been quoted by Messrs. Baker and Smith. I came 

 round to Mr. Rodway "s view that it was a hybrid, and 

 added, "Some of ths juvenile foliage in my possession is 

 "coarser than any I have seen in E. viminalis, and I think 

 "that Mr. Rodway 's statement that this form only occurs 

 "in plantations of E. viminalis growing with E. globulus is 

 "a sufficient explanation." 



From that day to this I understood that the specimens 

 came from a plantation, and in view of the fact that Messrs. 

 Baker and Smith state that only two trees were found, they 

 require further examination, which I will give on my next 

 visit to Tasmania. 



9. E. gigantea Hook, f., "Gum-topped Stringybark." 



In Part xx. of my Critical Revision and Part 51 of my 

 Forest Flora, I have reproduced Hooker's (Fitch's) figure, 

 XNO. xxviii.. Flora. Tastnaniae, and have shown that, mak- 

 ing allowances for some confusion in the text with E. ohliqua 

 L'Herit., Fitch's beautiful figure should stand, and that it 

 includes E. dcleyatensis R. T. Baker. There seems to be 

 no sufficient reason for relegating E. gigantea to the laibbish 

 heap. 



The histoiy of the "Gum-topped Stringybark" and its 

 many synonyms has been very fully gone into at Part ii, 

 p. 68, of my Critical Revision, and elsewhere, particularly 

 in the two works to which I have referred. 



10. E. ohliqua L'Herit. 

 I have explained the long standing confusion with E. 

 gigantea Hook. f. in Part xx. of my Critical Revision and 

 Part 51 of my Forest Flora. 



11. E. liaemastoma Sm. 



The authors say that as the result of this investigation 

 "it is found not to exist in the island." This claim is quite 

 untenable in view of the following. 



In Part ii., pj*71 of my Critical Revision, after di'awing 

 attention to the confusion which has grown around the 

 erroneous use of E. haemastoma for a Tasmanian tree, I say 

 that the name should be dropped. In Part x., p. 321, of 

 the same work, I expressh'^ exclude E. haemastoma from 

 Tasmania, and do the same at Part 37 of my Forest Flora. 



