354 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION D. 
Some of Gunn’s specimens in European herbaria labelled 
“ Hucalyptus radiata’ with glaucous buds really belong to 
E. coriacea. Some of them are labelled “ Very common 
about Hobart Town,’ and “ Weeping Gum of Norfolk 
Plains.” The true H. radiata, Sieb., is much less likely 
to be confused with #. coriacea, A. Cunn., than the forms 
(H#. radiata, Hook. f., non. Sieb.) that Hooker took to be 
H. radiata See p. 356. 
Synonyms— 
1. #. submultiplinervis, Miq. 
LE. submultrplinervis, Mig., var. minor, Miq. 
(#. silvicultriz, F.v.M., Herb.). 
See Ned. Kruidk. Arch. iv. 138 (1856). 
Miquel’s #. submultiplinervis was founded on Charles 
Stuart’s Nos. 10, 13, 14, 15, from Tasmania. Specimen 
No. 34 (species number in Miquel’s paper), ‘“‘ Hucalyptus 
silvicultrix, Ferd. Miieller, Tasmania” (in Miieller-s hand 
writing), and “ #. submultiplinervis forma minor,” in that 
of Miquel, have buds, and are undoubtedly coriacea, as so 
marked by Bentham on the specimen. _I fail to see that 
Miquel’s “forma minor” is really smaller than the other 
specimens. 
2. Following is copy of a label in Herb., Melb. :— 
“ Buc. sylvicultriz, F.v.M., Syn., #. coriacea, A. 
Cunn., var. silvicultriz, F.v.M., Syn., #. mults- 
plinervis, Mig. (a slip of the pen for submultt- 
_plinervis). No. 765, near Woodhall, March, 
Stuart.” 
The above type material is in twigs bearing leaves, very 
young buds, and flowers. The material, as far as it goes, 
in the venation of the leaves and their hooked apices, 
their length and breadth, in the very young buds, in the 
calyces and flowers, absolutely match much of the #. 
coriacea from New South Wales. Bentham (B. Fl. ui. 
201), speaks of #. suwbhmultiplinervis, Miq., EF. sylvicultriz, 
F.v.M.), as a narrow, straight-leaved variety, with the 
flowers of the ordinary size. Looking over a large series 
of E. coriacea and three or four specimens of #. swhmultr- 
plinervis, I see nothing abnormal in the latter. 
3. E. phlebophylla, F.v.M., is also interesting to the 
Tasmanian botanist, from the circumstance that 
Miquel (Ned. Kruidk. Arch. iv. 140, 1856), 
who described the species on behalf of Mueller, 
gave Stuart’s Tastnanian specimens as co-types. 
