346 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION D. 
* seeds coming from either New Holland or Van Diemen’s 
Land would no doubt be so labelled, and I therefore think 
that the locality being given as “New Holland” strengthens 
the case that the seeds were sent from Sydney. Sims was 
familiar with Labillardier’s specimen of H. cordata from 
Van Dieman’s Land, and was emphatic that his tree was 
distinct from that of the French botanist’s. It will also 
be noted that he disputes its being ranked as a synonym of 
E. cordata; and that, too, after discussing the matter 
personally with Robert Brown (loc. cit.). 
I have seen £. cordata growing in Tasmania, and in my 
opinion the evidence is quite sufficient to warrant its being 
regarded as quite a distinct tree from Sims’ #. pulverulenta ; 
and Baron Miieller must also have held this view, for his 
plate of #. cordata illustrates quite a different tree from 
Sims’ ZL. pulverulenta of the Bot. Mag., and the same 
remarks also apply to Labillardiere in his plate of Z. 
cordata (Pl. Nov. Hoil., t. 152). 
Since A. Cunningham recorded this tree from Cox’s 
River in 1825 (Field’s, N.S.W.), it appears never to have 
been again collected till January, 1900, when Mr. R. H. 
Cambage, L.S., was fortunate enough to have found a few 
trees of it at Cow Flat, near Bathurst, thus showing what 
a rare species it is. I have recently (1901) visited this 
locality, and thoroughly examined these trees,and consider 
Sims’ description and plate (loc. cit.) most faithfully depict 
this particular Eucalyptus, and not the “ Argyle Apple,” 
E. cinerea, a tree I had known in the field since 1888, 
neither is it #. cordata of Tasmania, as shown above. 
The confusion has probably been caused, in a measure, 
perhaps, by Miieller suppressing his Z. cinerea, the “ Argyle 
Apple,” under Sims’ Z#. pulverulenta (a classification from 
which Bentham dissented, B. Fl. iii, p. 239), and then 
figuring it as #. pulverulenta in his “ Eucalyptographia.”’ 
Morphologically there may be some slight resemblance in 
herbarium material of these two trees, but in the field 
their differences cannot be questioned. The flowers of 
this species are larger than those of the ‘“ Argyle Apple,” 
E. cinerea, F.v.M. I now regard Miieller’s #. cinerea, 
“Argyle Apple,” as distinct from Sims’ 2. pulverulenta, 
and my researches confirm Bentham’s classification of these 
two species (B. Fl. ili., pp. 224, 239). 
Those who are familiar with this Eucalyptus in the field 
will at once recognise how faithfully it has been depicted 
and described by Sims, in the Botanical Magazine, and that 
although closely connected, yet is quite distinct from Z. 
cordata, Labill., of Tasmania. 
