214 
- described in his Prodromus (vol. vii., p. 762) as var. “6 ? subreflexa”’ 
with the additional observation “An species propria.” In the 
Flora Australiensis De Candolle’s name does not appear ; but the 
Botanical Magazine figure is quoted under “var. ? planifolia” of 
E. heteronema. The specimen from which this figure was drawn is 
preserved, and it is quite clear that it agrees absolutely with the 
plant referred to Epacris dubia, as var. subreflexa, N.E. Br., in the 
Kew Bulletin for 1909. But from a comparison of the flower it is 
equally evident, first that the cultivated plant is specifically 
identical with the specimen collected by A. Cunningham in New 
South Wales, and labelled “a tall twiggy shrub in elevated swampy 
lands B. Mountains, W. Port Jackson and Country N. from 
already suggested by A. e Candolle. In fact, Bentham 
himself at one time held that view and actually gave the cultivated 
C. Moore; Munione Range. M 
Victoria, Aus : a 
cr 
& 
fe) 
ple 
= 
mM 
aa 
So 
=. 
a 
@ 
5 
PS 
5 
oN 
3) 
° 
= 
mM 
a 
er 
> 
C “ach other, nor are they referable to E. heteronema 
- E. a or, in fact, to any of the ap species so far described ; 
“y ave therefore to be treated as new. Their characters may be 
gathered from the descriptions given below. As to their affinities 
it is difficult to pronounce without overhauling the whole genus ; 
but it may be said th i . 
e cultivated speci ; 
been connected with Lindle A oo — satire; ee 
figured in the Botanical i 
sent to Lindley by a Mr. Ja 
Not ing more is known about it 
extant either at Kew, the British 
at the University of Cambridge 
for E. heteronema, but afterwards f 
He might have added, that it diffe 
he figured in detail. 
panying plate the 
Bers tiered still more in the flower which 
>ut in spite of the description and the accom- 
Species 1s dubious, and will for ever remain so 
