EUCALYPTUS FLORA. 365 
F.—E. coccifera, Hook. f. (Lond. Journ. Bot. vi. 477, 
1847. Journ. Hort, Soc. vi. 222. Bot. Mag. 78, 
4637.) 
This received its specific name because its foliage was 
infested with a Coccus, a condition by no means peculiar to 
this species; debilitated Eucalypts of perhaps any species 
may become thus infested. 
“This species has much the same aspect of some thick- 
leaved forms of #. amygdalina, but is readily known by 
the depressed operculum and longer calyx.” (B. Fl. iii. 
204. 
ae affinity of #. coccifera with ZL. coriacea, var. alpina, 
is so pronounced as to be apparent to the most super- 
ficial observer, but is distinguished from that species in the 
more prominent and more spreading veins, showing its 
closer relationship to 4. amygdalina. 
The affinity of this species to the alpine Tasmanian forms 
of LH. amygdalina is undoubtedly great. The leaves of 
both species are very similar as regards the venation, &c. 
Further observations are required to absolutely settle their 
relations, though I believe that ZH. coccifera is quite a 
distinct species; the seedling-leaves settle this. Following 
are some specimens examined : — 
(a) E. coccifera, Hook. f—Tree, 120 ft., Mount 
Wellington, Tasmania. Oldfield. (Herb. Bar- 
bey-Boissier.) 
(6) 1076, R. Gunn, 1844. (Herb. Kew.) 
(c) 411, R. Gunn, var. parviflora, Benth‘ Flowers 
much smaller, the peduncles exceedingly short.” 
(B. FI. in. 204.) 
I have not seen Gunn’s specimens of this form, and 
would recommend that they be compared with 2. amygda- 
lina, var. alpina. 
Synonyms— 
Jl. #. alpina, R. Br. MS.—Top of Table Mountain, 
Tas. (Herbs. Kew. and Brit. Mus.) 
2. H. daphnoides, Miq. (Ned. Kruidk. Arch. iv. 133, 
1856).—The type specimen is Stuart’s No. 9. 
There is a specimen in Herb. Kew. marked 
“#. amygdalina nitida var.” 
3. In Herb. Barbey-Boissier is a specimen of #£. 
coccifera labelled Hucalyptus citryandra. Ver- 
riéres pres Paris, 27 April, 1891. Cult. 
Vilmorin, gélé, 1890-1891. 
