cinnamomums of australia. 245 



Systematic. 



Turning again to the systematic side of these trees, Bentham 

 (Flora Australiensis, vol. v) states, under C. Tamala : — 



"These specimens appear to me to agree perfectly with E. Indian ones 

 of the fertile tree, accurately described by Roxburgh, who gives it as a native 

 of various mountains of the Indian Continent. The Australian specimens 

 have only very few of the flowers fully out, and no fruit. In Indian ones 

 the fruiting perianth has six short truncate lobes, the upper portion of the 

 lobes being alone deciduous. There are several other Indian Cinnamoma 

 described as species which, as observed by both Miquel and j\Ieissner, are very 

 difficult to distinguish in all their various forms from C. Tamala, and may be 

 hereafter united with it ; but even then, as far as I have been able to ascertain , 

 Hamilton's specific name of Tamala will have to be retained as the oldest.'' 



And Ewart, loc. cit., states : — 



" The specimens in the National Herbarium are marked Probably Cinna- 

 momiim Tamala, Nees, in the handwriting of \on Mueller, and queried 

 Cinnamomum virens, R. T. Baker, by R. T. Baker. One specimen of C. 

 virens is marked by R. T. Baker as very close to C. pyopinquiim, Bailey, which 

 Bailey considers to be closely allied to C. ovalifolium, Wight, Ic. 125. A 

 type specimen of C. propinquum, Bailey, agrees closely with the figure of 

 C. albifloriim, Nees (Laurus cassia, Roxb.) in Wight, Icones 140, and this 

 species is an accepted synonym for C. Tamala, Nees. This disagreement of 

 experts probably results from the fact that all these ' species ' are so closely 

 connected with C. Tamala by intervening forms as to render it advisable 

 to extend the boundary of this species so as to include C. virens, Baker, C. 

 propinquum, Bailey, and C. oliveri, Bailey, of which plant we have specimens 

 from the same locality (Lismore) as C. propinquum." 



(In this connection I would like to say that I was writing from 

 memory when going over this material at Melbourne, and had not 

 my original specimens with me). 



It will be seen that both these conclusions, although made 

 at the extremities of the earth, are founded upon morphological 

 data alone, and in the case of Bentham on imperfect material, so 

 that from our present knowledge it would appear he was hardly 

 justified in synonymising Mueller's C. Lauhatii under C. Tamala 

 on such evidence only, for in his own words it is upon that he based 

 his results. 



\The Occurrence of C. Tamala in Australia. — ^To my mind there 

 is no justification for the inclusion of this species as Australian. 

 Hooker, in his " Flora of British India," vol. v, p. 128, gives the 

 locality for this species as " Tropical and sub-tropical Himalaya, 

 from near the Indus to Bhotan, altitude 3-5000ft., ascending to 

 7800 in Sikkim ; Silhet and Khasia Mountains, altitude 3-4000ft.," 

 published 1890, and the Index Kewensis, published later, gives no 

 additional localities. 



There appears to be no record of its occurrence between the 

 Himalaya and its reputed Australian habitat, Rockingham Bay. 

 Now, as these locahties are so far apart, it certainly would be 

 remarkable if the trees were specifically identical. Through the 

 kindness of Professor Ewart I have been able to see the original 

 specimen from Rockingham Bay, Queensland, and named by 

 Mueller C. Laitbatii. to which is added another label by Mueller, 

 i.e., C. Tamala, var. ex. Benth.] 



