20 A RESEARCH ON THE EUCALYPTS OF TASMANIA 



Bentham, in " Flora Australiensis " (III., p. 200), 

 states in connection with this and one or two other species 

 that " although evidently seen by the authors in bud or 

 in flower as well as in leaf, are far too imperfectly described 

 to render their identification possible": and Mueller, in 

 his " Eucalyptographia," under " E. aftn/f/t/aliiifi," states: 



K. linruria, Dehn., seems merely to indicate a variety 

 remarkable for the extraordinary narrowness of its leaves, 

 but neither flowers nor fruits occur in authentic specimens, 

 preserved in the collection of Baron Cesari, who kindly 

 placed samples of Dehnhardt's original plants at my 

 disposal." 



In Walpole's " Repertorium " (II., 164) the locality is 

 given as New Holland. 



The leaves of this Tasmaman Eucalyptus are narrow, 

 but not extraordinarily so, certainly not r /'//////////'*, willowy, 

 as given by Walpole (loc. cit.), and the locality New Hol- 

 land in 1839 is suspicious that the tree was not from Van 

 Diemen's Land. 



The original description is far too brief for identifica- 

 tion purposes, and as Dehnhardt's plant was probably a 

 cultivated one, it seems it is only wasting time to give it 

 any attention, especially as the original specimen in the 

 Imperial History Museum of Vienna is in bud only, and 

 is, therefore, almost worthless from a systematic point of 

 view. 



It is stated that A. Cunningham collected specimens, and 

 labelled them " K. Hnettri*, Hobart Town, 1819, A. 

 Cunn./' in which case it might be surmised that this is 

 the tree ; but this is only a surmise, for the tree going under 

 the name of E '. amygdalina in Tasmania has very narrow 

 leaves in some instances, and the name " Hm-nrix " quite 

 describes them. Maiden (Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas. 1902), 

 under "K. tinearis," states that: "The upshot of my 

 investigation is that /:'. Uncuria, Dehnhardt, and K. /////- 

 chella, Desfontaines, are specifically identical. Both were 

 named from plants raised in Europe. In my Australasian 

 Association for the Advancement of Science paper I have 

 put forth a plea for a final investigation by Tasmanian 

 botanists as to whether a certain Mt. Wellington tree is 

 identical with E. linearis, Dehn., and, if so, whether it is 

 con-specific with E '. amygdalina, Labill." 



We, however, think there is not sufficient evidence to 

 prove that the tree now going under the name of E '. lin?ari.< 

 is that so-called by Dehnhardt and E. pulchella by Desfon- 

 taines names founded on plants raised in Europe. But 



