364 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION D. 
alternis linearib. angustissimis subfalcatis rugosiusculis 
subcrenulatis, in petiolum decurrentib., apice uncinatis, 
cortice laevi punctato. Crescit in Nova Hollandia.” 
Bentham says that #. linearis is far too imperfectly de- 
scribed to render identification possible (B. Fl. iui. 200.) 
I have not seen a type specimen,* but I understand that 
the specimens about to be referred to are authentic. 
A smooth-barked species, and, in my opinion, in spite of 
the fact that there are connecting links between it and FZ. 
amygdalina, it will be convenient to retain it as a species, 
at all events for the present. It seems a more strongly- 
marked form than the other varieties of amygdalina, but 
we must look to Tasmanian botanists for a full investigation 
of it with reference to other forms. 
E. linearis, as seen by me on Mount Wellington, is a large 
White Gum, with stripy bark. The leaves are strict, and 
inclined to be succulent. They seem to have an odour of 
oil of geranium when crushed. 
Herb, Cant. contains a very narrow-leaved form of the 
narrow-leaved 1079 Gunn, which bears the label, “ #. 
linearis, Cunn., environs of Hobart Town: is one of 
Lhotsky’s amygdalina vars.”’ 
I cannot find that Cunningham ever published a species 
of that name; the plant is, however, identical with what 
goes under the name of #. linearis, Dehnh. A Kew label has 
“ #. linearis, Hobart Town, 85/1819, A. Cunn.”’ 
Another specimen of Gunn’s 1079, labelled “‘ Peppermint 
Gum,” is taken as typical of 2. amygdalina by Hooker, 
(Fl. Tas.) 
Backhouse cails it the “ Mountain Peppermint” of 
Oyster Bay. 
I have received cultivated specimens of it from Cali- 
fornia, under the name #. amygdalina, var. angustifolia, 
Link., a variety name I am unable to trace. There is, how- 
ever, in Link’s “ Enumeratio,” ii. 30, “No. 227, #. angustt- 
folia, Desfont. Par. Fol. subsessilia, 2/ 6/’, lga. 2’/, lata 
acutata attenuata,’ which may be #. linearis, Dehnh. 
Specimens labelled #. angustifolia, Desf., in Herb. Berol., 
1900, are #. viminalis, Labill. I observe that Don (Gen. 
Syst. ui. 819) refers #. angustifolia, Desf., to H. salagna, 
while Bentham (B. Fl. iii. 200) says it is very doubtful. 
I may mention that #. angustifolia, Desf., has also been 
quoted as H. angustifolia, Spreng. et Candolle, and F. 
angustifolia, Link. Enum. ex Spreng. 
* Since this was written I have seen the type, and have writtena paper 
on the subject (See Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas. 1902.) 
