215 
unless the original specimen should be found. This uncertainty is 
due entirely to the discrepancies between the description which is 
too short to stand by itself and the figure which, if Lindley’s very 
precise statements are worth anything, shows a great lack of 
accuracy. Lindley insists upon the leaves being terminated by a 
“blunt callus” (callo obtuso apiculatis) and beg “not merely 
slightly three-ribbed at the base, but plainly so through their whole 
length,” while the artist represented them as very acute or even 
produced into a fine pungent mucro and without any indication 
of ribs. Then in the description the anthers are sai 
are written up “ Epacris dubia” ; but the writing is R. Brown’s 
and much older than Lindley’s description of E. dubia. Possibly 
it was never intended for a specific name and stood merely for 
“a dubious species.” : 
E. heteronema of the Flora Australiensis is therefore a composite 
species, made up of four distinct elements, none of which can be 
17122 A2 
