30 NOTES ON SOME TASMANIAN EUCALYPTS, 



12. E. aggregata Deane and Maiden. "Black Gum" of New 

 South Wales. 



This is identical with E. Ro'diraiji Baker and Smith, p. 

 191 and plate ii. of their paper. 



The authors have been misled in the first place 

 by my mistake, through imperfect material, in re- 

 ferring the Tasmanian tree to E. Macarthuri Deane 

 and Maiden, with which it would never be confused for a 

 moment by any person who saw its juvenile foliage. The 

 matter would have been cleared up in my "Critical Revi- 

 sion." The authors, both in the botanical and chemical 

 portion of their paper, refer to an unnecessary extent to E. 

 Mararfhuri. 



The fruiting twig of E. aggregnfn (Plate xlix., Proc. Linn. 

 Soc. N.S.W. XXIV., 1899) shows a sessile head of fruits, but 

 oftener than not the fruits are not sessile. See also the 

 pedicellate buds on the plate quoted. 



One would naturally expect to see some differences in the 

 oils of the Tasmanian and New South Wales trees. 



13. E. Sieheriana F.v.M. 



At p. 194 of this paper Messrs. Baker and Smith attempt 

 to prove that E. virgafa Sieb : is identical with E. Sieher- 

 iana F.v.M. 



At Parts ix. and x. of my Critical Revision, I have very 

 carefullv gone into the subject, quoting my authorities. 

 At p. 307 of Part x. 1 say : 



"In 'Eucalyptographia' under E. Sieheriana F.v.M., 

 "Mueller gives E. virgata Sieb.. as a synonym. It is not 

 "rrojicr to state it so. . . Mueller thought, when describing 

 "it, he was suppressing the 'misleading' name rhr/afa for it. 

 "The explanation is that E. rirgnfn, Sieber, was for many 

 "years confused by Honthnni, by Mueller, and other botanists 

 "with the tree Miiollor, in spite of himself, properly separated 

 "from rirrjata under the name Siehrrinna. I have explained 

 "the situation under E. rivgatc, at Part ix., p. 275, of this 

 "work, and need not repeat myself liore." 

 I know no true synonyms of E. Sieheriana F.v.M. 



Now Messi-s. Baker and Smith, by an argument that is 

 not perfectly clear to me, completely reverse my conclu- 

 sions, returning, as I maintain, to the old confusion I had 

 cleared up. This is part of their argument : — 



"It seems hardly likely either that Sieber, having hiniseif 

 "collected his two si)ocies in the field, should have civen separ- 

 "ate names to one and the same tree, for ho was thus able to 

 "speak from actual acquaintance with their field characters, 

 "an experience that is invaluable as regards a knowledge of the 

 "Eucalypts." 



