EUCALYPTUS CORDATA. 347 
“ ARGYLE APPLE.” 
III.—Fucalyptus cinerea, F.v.M., (B. Fl. iii. p. 239). 
Before the re-discovery of Sims’ species, by Mr. R. H. 
Cambage, I had always considered this Eucalyptus—the 
“Argyle Apple,’—as HL. pulverulenta, being probably led to 
this conclusion by Baron von Miieller, who, in his 
“ Eucalyptographia,”’ as previously. stated, - figures it as 
Sims’ £. pulverulenta, but now I think it is only under a 
much restricted classification that such a synonymy would 
hold, for when seen in their native habitat no two trees 
could be more unlike each other than are these two. 
Bentham, however, agrees with the ofiginal authors, 
Labillardiere, Sims, and Miieller, and separates the three 
species (B. FI. iii., pp. 224, 239), and my investigations con- 
firm this determination. 
It is unfortunate for recent botanical workers that 
Miieller figures this particular species (H. cinerea) when 
illustrating 2. pulverulenta (loc. cit.), and no doubt this 
’ has led to so much confusion of the two trees. 
In Miieller’s numerous references to HL. pulverulenta in 
his “ Eucalyptographia’”’ it is undoubtedly Z. cinerea that 
is meant, as it is that tree—the “ Argyle Apple ”—which 
has “a reddish, stringy bark and a reddish-coloured timber ”’ 
similar to H. Stuartiana, the “Apple” of Victoria, and 
Miieller often states that he was inclined to consider these 
two latter identical. Sims’ Z. pulverulenta has no such 
timber and bark. 
Miieller obtained his original specimens of the “ Argyle 
Apple” from near Lake George, N.S.W., a locality where 
it occurs to-day, and this further strengthens the case of 
it being his H#. cinerea, as Sims’ #. pulverulenta has never 
been found so far south. Bentham’s remarks in B. FI. 1ii., 
p. 239, under this species, are worth re-producing in this 
connection :—“‘F. Miieller unites this with #. pulverulenta, 
of which it may be a variety; but as far as the specimens 
go, the differences in the leaf, in the size of the flower, 
and in the shape of the fruit, appear to be constant.” 
My botanical material is quite in agreement with these 
remarks, and my field observations fully endorse them, 
especially in regard to the bark and timber of the two 
being quite distinct. 
Under #. pulverulenta, Bentham (B. Fl. iii., p. 225) 
gives almost similar remarks to show that that species is 
different from VL. cinerea. 
Unfortunately, most of the Eucalyptus vernacular names 
are misleading, one name being applied to several] distinct 
