BY J. H. MAIDEN. 31 



In regard to this remark, I can say that, having examin- 

 ed every one of Sieber's numbered Eucalypts in the great 

 herbaria of Europe, he is not always infallible in regard to 

 this difficult genus, and little blame to him, while as re- 

 gai-ds the reference to actual acquaintance with their field 

 characters, the present writer speaks with infinitely greater 

 experience than this old worthy could have possibly obtain- 

 ed during his rapid and brief collecting tours in iSlew South 

 Wales in the year 1822. 



Messrs. Baker and Smith's cancelling of E. Sieheriana 

 F.v.M. for the Tasmanian "Ironbark" after it had been 

 adopted by Mueller {Eucalyptographia and Second 

 Census), Rodway {The Tasmanian Flora), and myself 

 seems to be one of the most unfortunate confusions of 

 nomenclature they have introduced into their paper. 



14. E. amygdalina Labill : 



The authors say (p. 200) that the tree of the mainland 

 so differs from that of Tasmania, the original home of the 

 species, both in morphological characters and oil, that they 

 would adopt a different name, were it not for causing incon- 

 venience. They, however, content themselves with the 

 varietal name {A)australiana for the mainland form. It is 

 not surprising that a slight difference has ensued during 

 the isolation of the two areas caused by Bass' Straits, but I 

 am not prepared to agree that the difference amounts to 

 that of a variety. 



In my Critical Revision I will examine a few further 

 points in Messrs. Baker and Smith's paper as the individual 

 species ai*e dealt with. 



